Category: Thame Community Forum

DEAR Editor, The Town Council is unable to respond to any statement about a ruling of an alleged breach of a code of conduct because the Town Council has not received any such notification from the RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) nor can find any such information on the RTPI website.

The Thame Neighbourhood Plan has been intensely scrutinised following continual allegations of malfeasance by Mr Webb and the Elms Petition Group. South Oxfordshire District Council, Thames Valley Police Fraud Office, The Commissioner for the Freedom of Information and an Independent Examiner have all concluded that there is no case to answer and have subsequently closed all enquiries about such allegations.

As stated last year a change to the Neighbourhood Plan would require a sound planning policy reason, and with no new significant material planning information coming forward since the Plan was made, removing the site would not prevent the owner of the site from developing it.

The Town Council reaffirms the integrity of the process by which the Plan was developed.
Cllr J Matelot Green
(Thame)Town Mayor

Associated news reports: https://www.thame.net/?s=The+Elms

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.

DEAR Editor, Previous letters to Thame residents have said that the fact that Elms Field is in the Thame Town Plan as a development site, limits the ability of SODC, the planning authority, to determine the suitability of the site.

SODC in 2006 declared that Elms Field and Elms Park were, together, Important Open Space, and extended the conservation area to include both. Following a review by English Heritage, this important conservation body declared that development would be Deeply Damaging,

Now, thanks to MP John Howells supposedly democratic Localisation Act.and elements in the Town Council, SODC find they can only “negotiate “ with the developer/owner of the field, but what does negotiation mean?

From being important open space, does the field get newly defined as unimportant open space? Does deeply damaging become somewhat damaging?

As for the so called “improvements” to the adjoining park, do these get negotiated down to simply “changes” to recognise the fact that they all favour the developer’s project and do not in any way favour the owners and users of the park?

Meanwhile, the council sits quiet. They have not responded to the letter from Peter Howes, which clearly summarised the Council’s failures. Neither has Cllr. Dyer admitted that he was wrong to say that the conveyance of land for the park did not commit the Council to protect the whole of the Elms, including the field.

The (well over) 2000 signatures petition is against any development in the field and will be resubmitted against all schemes, however they are amended.

The simple solution is for Thame Council to recognise that they have erred and carry out (if really needed) a simple one-issue postal referendum to all Thame citizens, asking whether they are for or against development in Elms Field.

The Town Council has already determined how the Elms field houses can be re-distributed to sites C, D and F, so what is their problem? Since the current negotiations involve fewer houses, re-allocation of some number is going to happen anyway, without a referendum. We are only saying, re-allocate the lot.

Residents and friends of Thame are invited to read the petition on elmspetition.org.uk, and if they agree with it, to add their signatures, which can be done easily from the website.

Peter Webb
Thame

DEAR Editor, Simmons Way in Thame! where do I even begin? This is the road notoriously known for the residents allegedly putting substances on members of the public’s cars, and consequently hindering and endangering their drive home; anything from putting cleaning polish on car windows to spraying paint on wing mirrors, making it virtually impossible to see out of them.

It was only on Friday that I had the exact samething done to my car! All this so that people avoid parking in their road?

This is a public road and residents CANNOT keep tampering with peoples cars. I have the exact same problem down my road and we have to grin and bear it.

I want to make it very clear what is happening and to ensure that the residents of Thame are warned about what these lunatics in Simmons Way, and to make the road’s residents very aware that they are effectively criminalizing themselves by doing what they are alleged to be doing.

Name and address supplied

DEAR Editor,  Several recent letters to the editor, including mine, have talked about the deleterious effect that the proposed Tesco development, if given the go-ahead, would have on our vibrant High Street in Thame. Quite rightly, the focus has been on the potentially adverse effect on small shops and other retailers on the High Street, which would become the victims of any large out-of-town shopping development.

However, not much has been said about the effect on businesses. Thame is a prosperous market town and levels of unemployment are low. This prosperity feeds through into the retail environment and shops and services of all kinds benefit. Because of Thame’s proximity to London, there will always be commuters, but there are also many businesses located in or near Thame, and this translates into local employment opportunities, which, I suggest, are a major factor in making Thame an attractive place to live and work. We have all seen on television images of towns where unemployment is high and the ruining effect that this has on town centres.

Many businesses in Thame are located in the industrial area that lies adjacent to the Eastern Bypass / Wenman Road areas, and the proposed Tesco development would occupy a large site which is currently home to a number of these businesses. These range from significant employers like DAF Trucks and other globally-known names such as Kubota to SME businesses of many kinds. The fact that Thame is home to such a rich and varied range of businesses is something to be prized, not shrugged off lightly, because of the attractions of locally based employment that they afford. If the Tesco development went ahead, where would these businesses go? Their current positioning is ideal, being edge of town but within easy distance of housing and shops. The last thing we need to do in these economically still uncertain times is to place obstacles in the path of business growth – rather, the existence and advancement of local businesses should be fostered and encouraged. To contemplate uprooting sustainable businesses and sending them elsewhere (perhaps away from Thame) is simply bad business and bad for Thame.

Helen Johns 
Tetsworth

Dear Editor,  Having read recently in the local press that Tesco have announced their intended new store plans for Thame, involving redevelopment of a large site on Howland Road to include a petrol station and large car park, I would like to comment that I don’t believe Thame needs a new supermarket, certainly not one on such a large scale.

Tesco have made several previous attempts to build a supermarket in Thame which have all been rejected, and I hope this one will be. We already have three major supermarkets in the town, which appear to meet present needs, and to create such a large new supermarket would, in my view, adversely change the configuration of the town. Much of the town’s attraction and the success of its High Street is based on the fact that the shopping experience is integrated with other facilities, from coffee shops to estate agents and professional services firms. The concentration of footfall helps smaller independent retailers to survive and this makes the High Street more interesting and diverse in its appeal.

Thame is a shining example of a town with a vibrant High Street, at a time when high streets in other towns are failing – at least in part because of the existence of out-of-town retail parks. To erect an out-of-town supermarket would split the retail experience, not to mention causing major traffic issues. I am surprised Tesco is proposing such a major development at a time when they are experiencing significant difficulties from competitors such as Aldi and Lidl – not to mention black holes in their accounts. Market research says it is the small store format – convenience and ‘express’ stores – which is gaining the upper hand at present; this reflects changes in people’s shopping habits focusing on smaller, more frequent shopping trips, driven partly by the economic situation and squeeze on household budgets.

If Tesco would like to withdraw their current grand plans, instead submitting proposals for a small-format in-town store, this might receive greater support, as they would seek to enhance the high street experience and diversity, not drain it and hasten its demise.

Helen Johns
Tetsworth

DEAR Editor, Mr Vickers, in his comment,  talks of accusations of malfeasance and corruption levelled at various persons. The fact is that no such accusations have been levelled by the elmspetition group. What we have done is question why Councillors were fed misleading information and why, on questionable grounds, was an important letter from English Heritage apparently withheld from Councillors at the same meeting, where they passed the Town Plan for referendum.

Remember that that letter was written shortly after a site meeting with Mr. Vickers’ (then) planning consultants. The letter dismissed the site assessment of those ex-consultants and concluded that development on Elms Field would be deeply damaging. The letter was not “late” as Councillors were told.

We have asked who were the persons, unnamed in the meeting’s minutes, who were responsible for misinforming Councillors. Not only has no person stepped forward, there has been no denial of our assertions. Voters will make what they like of that fact and they can remind themselves of the facts by checking on thamenews.net and on elmspetition.org.uk.

Also we have also questioned the involvement of the Council’s Planning Consultant. An independent planning consultant rang me to express the opinion that the involvement of the Council’s Planning Consultant was unethical, given his close link with Rectory. When we asked the Town Clerk to comment on this, she responded “That is a matter for Mr. Collinge”. Yes, she was that dismissive!

The matter is currently being looked at by the Royal Town Planning Institute’s Disciplinary Committee

Mr Vickers also zeros in on three of our members and ignores the fact that we speak for well over 2000 signatories. He also complains that the Thame Gazette publishes our letters. If the subject matter gets to be repetitive, that is because no proper answers are given.

The accusation of a “demand” for free land by myself is totally untrue. The fact is that I have long wanted to purchase a small plot at the back of my garden, before Dutch Eelm Disease a copse, which I hold on a long lease arranged with the Purser family. It was Mr. Vickers, who visited me and, finding that I was against development, said that my single objection against his plan would not count for much, but offered to give me the plot if I would agree not to object. I proposed that, any plan submitted should allow for a 30 metre division between the backs of my house and those on Park Street which overlook the field. Mr. Vickers agreed to this and that the area would be planted with trees. Not only is all this is writing, the matter was fully reported to the dozen or so persons who met to establish the elmspetition group. We agreed a tactical response but when Mr. Vickers later decided to take no action prior to receiving a planning consent, we decided to drop the matter and I added my signature to the petition.

People should recall that, at the start, it was put about that The Elms had been bought as a retirement home. This despite the fact that Surveyors were quickly on the scene, despite the fact that sheep did not need to know exact boundaries and tree locations. Scepticism was widespread and the story appears to have been dropped.

Remember also that Rectory threatened myself, and others, with legal action for having the temerity to resist the spoliation of what SODC has described as “important open Space”. Mr Vickers’ earlier lawyers are also on record demanding the names of all signatories on the petition (at that time 500) so that they could be threatened with legal action also. We refused to give this information but the 2000 odd names and addresses appear on the SODC planning website (go to planning and type in P14/S2176/FUL in the search box), so Rectory can now issue proceedings if they wish. Signatories can be sure of course that this, frankly silly, threat will go nowhere.

As we have said before, we are not questioning Rectory’s ability to produce a quality product. All we have said is – not on this site. The reasons are clearly laid out in the petition, which can be seen on our website. No sense to build on Elms Field and no need. Go build on sites C,D or F. Of course that would reduce the profit from what we estimate to be an extraordinary level in Elms Field, so we do understand Mr Vickers’ desire to press on.

What is mystifying is why there are Councillors supporting him and apparently prepared to renege on the contract they signed in 1948 to protect The Elms; and not to open a public access into the sheep pasture. Also to ignore the conflict within their own Town Plan between an agreement to build on land which was not one of the sites proposed and analysed for suitability by the Planning Authority and the same plan’s promise to protect existing open space.

The same Councillors have allowed rectory’s application to “improve” the park to go forward, despite the fact that all the “improvements” benefit Rectory and have not a jot of benefit to the owners and users of the park. The former being the people of Thame.

Instead of a row of mature trees allowing sight of the open space of a sheep pasture, users will be faced with a wall of houses within feet of the boundary. The re-locating of the paved play area, with the loss of one basketball court in the process, is surely proposed in order to move noise away from Rectory’s buyers. And the proposed mounds seem to be a cheap way to dispose of spoil from excavations on the housing site. Dump it in the adjacent park. Furthermore, the proposed footpaths are totally useless and do not shorten the distance for pedestrians going from the Broadwaters area in to the town center.

Mr Vickers is wrong to say that his scheme will be judged against the plan and established planning principles. The fact is that, being in the plan removes from SODC the normal right to consider a site’s suitability. As for “sustainability” (a much abused word) – read the petition.

This is why we are asking for the Plan to be revised. The Council already has a backup plan to relocate houses to sites to the sites analysed by SODC originally, if less that 45 are allowed on Elms Field. Zero is less than 45 so we say re-allocate the lot. And restore SODC’s proper power to assess all applications on
their merits.

Yes, my personal main concern is my outlook. Others have different main concerns. The point is that there are many reasons against this development and signatories of the petition are united in mutual support. Please read the petition and, if you sympathise, add the signatures of the over 18s in your family.

Peter Webb
Thame