Thame.net

Category: Thame Community Forum

  • ‘Conditions to Site F plans proves the site’s imperfections’

    Dear Editor, The approval for 203 dwellings on site F was a foregone conclusion and inevitable. It would however have been more democratic for the application for such a large site, to be agreed by the planning committee rather than the planning officers at SODC.

    I believe this came as a surprise to some of the town councillors. Nevertheless looking at the broader picture, 203 is much more preferable than the 600 originally planned for this site five years-ago, and is in accord with the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. We are conscious that it is most likely that another 78 will be built there as it seems Lord Williams’s School will not be in a position to unite the two schools in the allotted time period.

    The fact that SODC has applied no less than 30 conditions shows the imperfections of the site. Residents’ concerns have largely been dismissed with regard to the location of the allotments and the access into, and moreover, out of the site. It also remains to be seen whether the SUDS proposals will eliminate the flood risks. Our major concern has always been over the sewerage. This is covered by the Grampian style condition whereby Bloor Homes have to make payment to Thames Water to upgrade the inadequate sewerage drainage.

    However, we believe this will need careful monitoring and it is of course likely to lead to major traffic delays on the Oxford Road whilst the upgrade takes place.
    Barry Yates
    Chair- Oxford Road Residents Association, Thame

  • Petition group asks planners why they want to approve Elms development

    Dear Editor, The following letter was sent to SODC yesterday, on behalf of the Elms Petition group and I would be grateful if you would publish it on the website to the wider community. (Editor’s edits in brackets for clarity)

    “Dear Emily (Planning Officer), It is a mystery to us that SODC planning are recommending acceptance of Rectory’s latest scheme for the Elms (in Thame).

    As stated several times by our group, such approval runs counter to SODC’s 2006 statement that Elms Field and Elms Park were, together, important open space. It is also contrary to the judgement of English Heritage that development would be deeply damaging. It ignores the opinion of your own Conservation Officer and concerns apparently expressed by your Forestry Officer.

    Over 2500 residents have protested and stated that there should be no development on this pasture, which has remained in such use for over 200 years and which is an important lung for Thame. This is probably a record for objections, and you are choosing to ignore all these people. Why? There are people who do not care either way but no one, other than the developer and a couple of mysteriously motivated Councillors, have written in support – the latter ignoring their own Council’s decision not to support the Rectory plan.

    You are aware that the Town Clerk and a couple of Councillors told voters that there was no point in voting “No”, because 750 houses were coming anyway. Clearly, The number of house was never the issue. Where to build them, was the issue and the document presented to constituents made no mention of where.

    The plan, despite what Mr John Howell MP thinks, is a nonsense anyway. The 750 houses will be built in about five years, not twenty. Then what? No more building?

    Also there is a current argument between people who want a Tesco out-of-town store (in Thame) and those who don’t. The plan says no such store, so why is that not the end of the matter?

    You are aware also that some of the 45 houses allocated to Elms field have to be allocated to one of the designated sites. So why not turn down the 37 and re-allocate them all? There is plenty of room on the other sites, which were originally suggested and analysed for suitability by SODC. Elms Field was not one of those sites.

    MP Howell has (the) political motivation to claim credit for local plans (Neighbourhood Plans). He will not admit to any shortcomings, including the two I have mentioned above, as his desire to climb the greasy pole prevents such admission.

    Furthermore, although having failed to convince English Heritage that the view to the South was of lesser importance to the Elms, and thus justified building behind The Poplars and houses on Park Street, now, amazingly, the latest scheme builds also behind the Elms itself, thus destroying the settings of both listed buildings. Setting is supposed to be an important part of a listing, isn’t it?

    And SODC propose accepting this? Why? Who is wielding undue influence? Is it a case of political interference? In this connection it should be noted that the 6′ Leylandi hedge which the previous owners planted to shield their tennis court from the Park, had been allowed to over-grow so as to destroy the view to the South.

    You have ignored the findings of the Royal Town Planning Institute who admonished Thame’s Planning Consultant for his failure to ensure that his recommendations during the formation of the town plan did not run contrary to his obligations to his major client Rectory (Homes), from whose offices he ran his consultancy.

    You have ignored the fact that the town plan (Thame Neighbourhood Plan) was sent by Councillors for referendum after they were blatantly mislead with false information during that Council meeting.

    You have glossed over the fact, reported to you, that when Rectory presented their case to include Elms Field as a site for building, no member of the plan steering group was present. The Town Clerk alone heard the Rectory case and subsequently became a supporter. Questions arise but SODC is failing to ask them.

    Please note also that Rectory Homes, in a meeting with the writer long ago, promised a 30m barrier behind both The Poplars and the Park Street Houses. This was to be planted with seven or eight well grown trees. I have a copy of the plan. Now, Rectory have reduced the barrier to about 20m, do not extend it behind the Park Street dwellings, and show no planting.”

    NB The elms petition group seeks additional signatures to the petition against development on Elms Field. The petition and signing can be done by logging on to  http://elmspetition.org.uk/

    Regards
    Peter Webb for the elmspetition group

    EDITOR: Comments on the proposed development of land at The Elms from others, on both sides of the debate, can be read in the ‘Comments’ section at the end of every report on this subject – see LINK including several HERE

  • Thame Neighbourhood Plan and the Tesco proposals

    To say that the arrival of Tesco will not affect town centre businesses is simply not true.  The Thame Neighbourhood Plan clearly states that;

    “any major shopping outside the town centre would be likely to undermine the town’s vitality of the town centre shops.  This would be detrimental to the overall sustainability of the town and would be likely to reduce the accessibility and choice of services and facilities available to the community”.

     FACT:  a study in Fakenham, Norfolk found that town centre food retailers experienced a 64% decline in market share following the opening of an out of town supermarket. 

    Furthermore, government policy on both a national and local level is focusing on the use of town centres for convenience shopping.  Therefore, if there is a need shown for an additional store, then this is exactly where it should be placed, to act as an “anchor” for the independent shops, just as the current supermarkets do.

    Is should also be noted that many independent retailers also buy their supplies locally which obviously contributes to the wider local economy and also employment.

    On the subject of employment, these supposed 200 jobs are likely to be part-time or on zero hours contracts and permanent, full-time positions would be lost in the town as a result of businesses closing or relocating, so no gain here!

    What would happen to Thame Market if Tesco came to town?  This has been in existence since the 14th Century and is one of the most successful markets in the South East of England, providing great variety and choice at a reasonable price.

    If people really do ‘care’ about the town then help to preserve what is truly great about it ……. Its High Street!

    Estate agents describe Thame as “a bustling market town” … let’s keep it that way and say “no thank you” to out of town shopping.

    Kate Sherrington

     

  • Closing Thame’s Tourism Office ‘was a mistake’

    Dear Editor, Amidst all the worries about the future of the centre of our unique and beautiful town I will say, as I have before, that it was a mistake for our separate Tourism Office to have been closed.

    A tourism office would confer on us the status of being a place for people from far and wide to visit, to savour the character of this quintessential English market town in beautiful countryside, and the visitors would bring ‘footfall’ to all the small shops which are the kind of places which attract holidaymakers wanting to explore, and who are looking for something different.

    Norman Brand
    Fanshawe Road

  • Objectors to Tesco store ‘are not blinkered’

    DEAR EDITOR, Rachel Lester’s comment in a recent issue of thame.net contained some interesting points. As stated, the overall sustainability of the town centre as a thriving place for business, and community is of central importance and it can only be maintained through the presence of a wide range of shops, businesses and facilities. However, we reject the claim that local residents and retailers concerned about the effect an out-of-town supermarket will have on our unique town centre are ‘blinkered’ in their views. Furthermore, we refute the claim that an out-of-town superstore could in anyway enhance our town centre.

    The assertion that our independent stores aren’t selling goods which compete with supermarkets, and therefore will not be affected is simply not true. What about our butchers, who offer meat from local sources? What about The Book House, who sell paperbacks and children’s books? And what about Glynswood, who sell stationery products and cards? It’s not only independents, other high street multiples would also suffer from the presence of an out-of-town supermarket. Tesco would almost certainly include within its ranges pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products, books and magazines, cookware and household goods, all of which are available from town centre retailers such as Boots, Superdrug, Robert Dyas, and Martin’s. These stores, as well as the independents, will suffer loss of trade, and some will surely question whether they can remain and invest in our town centre.
    Crucially, the issues of footfall and opportunity were also overlooked in Ms Lester’s piece. As recognised in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and by an independent retail survey, our current supermarkets play an important role in drawing shoppers into the town centre. When retail outlets are clustered together, shoppers are able to visit supermarkets, other multiples and independents, all as part of the same trip. Currently the town centre benefits from concentration of footfall, which makes it easy to go to a wide variety of shops, restaurants and businesses. All the retailers and other businesses stand to benefit from this concentration and will all suffer from a reduction in footfall. Conversely, a large out-of-town superstore which is not within easy walking distance of the town will suck business away from the town and if one out-of-town store is allowed others will undoubtedly follow. Unfortunately, this is a familiar story for many small market towns.

    Our town centre is far from perfect, and issues such as parking, traffic congestion and business rates need attention. However, our town centre is at the heart of our community and the envy of many visitors who are attracted to it, hence we should work together to support it, address these issues and make it better.

    A Thame resident summed the issue up concisely in a letter to another paper last week. He said, the question to be asked is: ‘Do you want an out-of-town supermarket in Thame at the expense of losing our vibrant high street and town centre?’
    Many people think not, which is why all five of Thame’s residents’ associations voted to support our campaign along with over thirty of the town’s retailers and businesses. If you also agree, please visit our website, sign our petition or get in touch to offer your support.

    Thame Centre First

  • ‘Tesco should be welcomed’ to Thame

    DEAR Editor,

    Over the past few weeks we have seen the surrounding horizons of Thame changing for the ‘future’ with the commencement of the industrial development opposite DAF, Taylor Wimpey and Croudace Homes all building and changing the landscape of the perimeter of the town.

    In addition we learn plans have now been submitted to SODC byTesco in a step forward for what will be a much needed additional resource for the town.  Much controversy surrounds this particular development in that it will affect the heart of Thame and the independent shops.

    On reading the article on Thame News Net it is clear that it would be detrimental to Tesco themselves if they were to detract and take away the appeal  and tradition of Thame town centre and it is a point they recognise -allowing Tesco would actually enhance the centre by avoiding the roads being congested – it would allow people to enjoy the independent shops without the fear of having to constantly ‘watch out’ for traffic and actually assist in sustaining the towns vibrancy.  The proposed provision of a bus service indicates that Tesco are keen to maintain the link between the town centre and its proposed ‘out of town’ store making access to Thame itself more accessible – thus encouraging  those living in surrounding villages to come to here to shop.

    Several ‘independents’ have closed over the past few months – it cannot be claimed that this is due to a ‘superstore’ which has not yet been built – looking at those individual shops, ie Isabellas Closet, Ella-Jane Gifts, Sweet Surrender, Freestyle Clothing – can it be honestly said that the type of goods they sold would have been under any threat from a store like Tesco – is it not more likely due to the possible high business rates charged by the Council – an issue highlighted by Thame Centre First who also recognise poor parking within the town – it certainly cannot be claimed that it is due to reduced footfall because of Tesco!

    Some shops are displaying ‘Save Thame Town – say No to Tesco’ signs -without naming to cause discord, those shops are simply not selling goods or providing services that will be affected by another supermarket.  In fact these businesses would probably benefit with the right approach and promotion – it is all well and good jumping on the band wagon ‘stop Tesco’ for fear of loss of business but effort needs to be made by these individual shops to promote and further appeal  to new custom drawn to the town, not only by Tesco but for those 600+ new families who will be moving to the area.

    It is claimed in the article on TNN that the impact and loss of an estimated £10M could be suffered by businesses in the town– I would ask whether that £10M would be lost from the ‘independents’ alone or whether in fact it includes the current supermarkets who are afraid of competition but in the meantime provide lack of provision nor cater for the full needs for a large percentage of the towns people.

    Tesco should be WELCOMED as an enhancement and addition to the town and looked upon as an important part of the overall infrastructure to support its growing population along with the need for expanding schools and doctors surgeries – those against the proposal should possibly look at it with a less blinkered approach and be looking at the overall whole sustainability of the town as a thriving place for both business and local communities alike.

    Rachel Lester
    Thame

     

  • The Elms: Disagreement over Conveyance continues

    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

  • The Elms: Open reply to Peter Webb from Mike Dyer

    Mr Webb,
    Please excuse me for responding by annotating your letter but, as legal arguments are involved, this seemed the simplest way to ensure clarity – my response(s) in red below.

    Dear Cllr Dyer, During the council meeting at the town hall last night, you stated that you had not been able to find anything in the conveyance of Elms Park that talked about protecting The Elms.

    A couple of weeks ago, you said that ‘the Elms’ did not include Elms Field. We showed you that the conveyance plan clearly shows that it does, but you have not acknowledged your error. No error. The plan in the Conveyance identifies two areas of the land. The area outlined in pink and yellow is what we know as Elms Park, and the area outlined in green encloses Elms House and Elms Field. The Conveyance specifically mentions the area in yellow as being 6.736 acres of land (or thereabouts), which agrees with the Council’s asset register which shows the area of Elms Park as 27154 m2 = 6.7 acres.

    Now, if you will look again at the document, which we must remind you, is signed by the council as a deed, i.e. as a contract, you will see in paragraph 2, – “this covenant may be for the benefit and protection of the premises known as The Elms Thame aforesaid which said property is coloured green on the said plan hereby covenants with the donor that the council and its successors in title will at all times observe and perform the conditions restrictions and stipulations set out in the first schedule hereto” This is confirming that the Council and any successor owner will continue to do all that is in the First Schedule, for the benefit and protection of The Elms, regardless of future ownership, i.e it relates purely to actions in what we know as Elms Park.

    Further, if you look at para 4 in the first schedule you will see that the council is obliged to have two small gates which are for the sole use of the owners of The Elms. So the proposed public open access in the Rectory plan and the park ‘improvements’ application, are illegal. This is not correct and you have only selected part of the clause. What it actually says is that ‘The donor and his widow and any of his descendants so long as he she or they are the occupiers of the Elms are to have the right of way to the park through two small gates…’ This condition therefore ceased to apply when the Purser family sold the property in 2010.

    Also, para 16 forbids the cutting of trees. Paragraph 16 is part of the First Schedule and therefore refers to trees within Elms Park, not those in Elms Field.

    In essence, the Purser family made a gift of land to the Council for use as a public park, including conditions which were designed to ensure that use of the park did not impinge on their enjoyment of the land that they retained.

    We would ask you to publicly acknowledge the illegality of Thame Council approving any plan to build on Elms Field. I decline your invitation and remain confident of the validity of including Elms Field as a site allocation within the Thame Neighbourhood Plan.
    Mike Dyer.

  • The Elms: Open letter to Thame Town Councillor

    Dear Cllr Dyer, During the council meeting at the town hall last night, you stated that you had not been able to find anything in the conveyance of Elms Park that talked about protecting The Elms.

    A couple of weeks ago, you said that ‘the Elms’ did not include Elms Field. We showed you that the conveyance plan clearly shows that it does, but you have not acknowledged your error.

    Now, if you will look again at the document, which we must remind you, is signed by the council as a deed, i.e. as a contract, you will see in paragraph 2, – “this covenant may be for the benefit and protection of the premises known as The Elms Thame aforesaid which said property is coloured green on the said plan hereby covenants with the donor that the council and its successors in title will at all times observe and perform the conditions restrictions and stipulations set out in the first schedule hereto”

    Further, if you look at para 4 in the first schedule you will see that the council is obliged to have two small gates which are for the sole use of the owners of The Elms. So the proposed public open access in the Rectory plan and the park ‘improvements’ application, are illegal.

    Also, para 16 forbids the cutting of trees.

    We would ask you to publicly acknowledge the illegality of Thame Council approving any plan to build on Elms Field.

    P. Webb, for the elmspetition group

  • Lib Dems accused of ‘peddling untruth’

    DEAR EDITOR, The Liberal Democrats are desperate and are trying again (as in 2011) to peddle the untruth that Labour cannot win local elections in Thame. This statement appeared in their so-called annual report delivered to the people of Thame which looks to me like a thinly disguised election leaflet.

    Why do they do this? Is it because they are intimidated by the passion and hard work of their fellow Town Councillor Mary Stiles? Or is it because they share the same memory loss of Nick Clegg in relation to his promises made about tuition fees?

    In 1995 Labour took all four District Council seats and Mary was elected to serve another four years in 1999. Mary served on the Town Council for twelve years consecutively from 1991 and has now served for another four years. Her achievements in relation to serving the needs of young people are second to none and cannot be ignored, even if this is what the Liberal democrats would like to do. The untruth is so blatant it may be actionable.

    The Labour Party is putting forward candidates (Mary Stiles, Tristram Maclean and Sam Juthani) to serve on the Town and District Councils and for the Henley Constituency. These candidates will listen to local people, tell the truth and seek to gain your trust by convincing you of what they have to offer the people of Thame.

    Geoff Emerson
    Chair – Thame Labour Party
    Park Street
    Thame