Category: Thame Community Forum

Dear Editor, The (Town) Council says that a reason is required to justify making any change to the Town (Ed. Neighbourhood) Plan but several reasons already exist.

To start with, there is a conflict in the adopted plan, which gives an undertaking to protect existing open space, but then allocates housing development to Elms Field, an existing open space within the conservation area.

Then also the validity of the adopted plan is in doubt since it was passed to referendum by Councillors who were give three pieces of incorrect information before they were invited to vote the plan through. This false information is a matter of record, via the minutes of the Council meeting held on the November 20, 2012. The only question is who made the incorrect statements recorded in those minutes?

Also, in the final circular by the plan’s working group to all residents, there was an absence of essential information on where the Plan proposed housing was to go. Location was , after all, the main purpose of the plan in the first place. The same circular instructed residents to vote “Yes” and said that that there was no point in voting “No” because we were going to get 775 houses anyway. The number was not the issue. Where to build was the issue so people were misdirected.

Finally, In the final Neighbourhood Plan, the Regulation 14 statement includes a list of the statutory Consultees but absolutely no details of any responses gained from them. This is in direct contradiction to the guidelines set out to create a neighbourhood plan.

Constituents might be reminded that Cllr Dyer, who lead the working group which produced the Plan, continues to repeat his mantra to the effect that, had Elms Field not been allocated housing in the plan, it could have come forward as a windfall site. Cllr. Dyer and his cohorts refuse to see the obvious nonsense of this. The fact is that, being in the plan severely restricts the SODC Planning Authority to examine the site for suitability; which is the normal first step on any planning application. They cannot refuse development on the site, only deal with matters of scale, design and possibly numbers.

On the other hand , if The Elms was to come up as a windfall site,  SODC Planning’s powers are restored and they can find against development on the basis of the sites unsuitability, as an important open space within the conservation area.

It is a fact also that there is plenty of room on the other designated sites and the Council has already decided where these 45 houses can go, if they are taken off Elms Field.

Why does the town council refuse to act on a matter where a substantial number of residents have clearly expressed an opinion against development on Elms field to their Councillors, who are supposed to be acting on behalf of their constituents?

Peter Webb
Upper High Street
THAME

DEAR Editor, From what I saw of it the Food Festival was a huge success as a family day out, blessed by the sunny weather and teeming with people of all generations, relaxing, happy.  This town looked at its best in the sun. I think the visitors must have come in their thousands – and what fun it was to see the jolly red Routemaster bus used for Park and Ride. No doubt that the disruption to local routine, parking restrictions and road diversions, were worth experiencing for a day.

I do wonder though whether the town planners might take note of the effect on the settled community of occasions like this, when considering future permanent increases in the numbers of residents of Thame.  Waitrose car park on Saturday afternoon was under huge pressure when I visited it about 4pm on Saturday (September 27), with a queue to drive in to it waiting for a stream of cars to  come out. And no room for anyone stuck in the incoming queue to turn and give up the attempt.

 In the car park I saw one example of an apparent complete lack of consideration by one driver who had parked sideways on by the disabled bays, obstructing any exit of three cars in the bays, while a full trolley was unloaded to the boot –perhaps the driver was disabled; I don’t know.  Meanwhile other cars inched past it amidst a throng of people on foot moving in all directions. Anyone parked further down from those three vehicles in the disabled bays had virtually no sight of what was trying to pass the obstructing car.

Someone could have been hurt.  While all this was going on I heard one or a two tentative beeps on car horns, though they may have come from some other place in the car park. That was all. Patience reigned.

The give-and-take and good manners of people in this town were put to the test. In some other places there would have been a nasty confrontation, maybe several, as people struggled with such conditions.

 So, town planners, if you want Thame to keep its character and charm and attraction for visitors, don’t let it get too big.

Norman Brand
Thame

Dear Editor, In response to the letter from A Conrad, published on your web site on Monday (September 1), he/she is being most disingenuous in suggesting that the Neighbourhood Plan has been overridden and is not worth the paper on which it is written.

As many of your readers will be aware I have been closely associated with the Neighbourhood Plan from inception, throughout its consultation and development period, through the Referendum process and subsequently in monitoring and policing its implementation. Yet it was I who spoke at SODC’s Planning Committee, on behalf of Thame Town Council, in favour of the application relating to commercial development on Site B (Cotmore Wells). The town council was well aware, and openly acknowledged, that the amount of land affected was in excess of that allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan but were unanimous in agreeing that there were strong material reasons to justify such a deviation – namely, local jobs !

The two companies (Groves and Windles) intending to occupy the new buildings are both currently based in unsuitable premises in Long Crendon and are substantial employers of people from Thame. Both companies wanted to remain local if at all possible but would otherwise have considered moves to Bicester, Aylesbury, or further afield, taking jobs away from Thame. Approval of the development not only retains those jobs but, with both businesses expanding, should bring another 80 new jobs over the next five years. I would also point out that the extra piece of land involved is behind the allocated site and has no increased impact on its frontage.

Whilst I am dedicated to protecting the Neighbourhood Plan and will defend it against any threats, I hate to think what the public outcry might have been if the Town Council had allowed those jobs to be lost, and perhaps we would instead have been reading the headline ‘Council sacrifices jobs in defence of Neighbourhood Plan’.

I would be most interested to learn where your correspondent has identified ‘large vacant industrial sites’ in Thame and hope for further enlightenment, but certainly there is no site available in Thame which would have been suitable for the needs of either of these two companies. I would strongly support the regeneration of our more tired industrial and commercial buildings but round pegs and square holes don’t generally fit.

Finally, I totally share your correspondent’s horror at the conversion of Angus House into flats but, regrettably, this was totally outside the control of the town council or the influence of the Neighbourhood Plan. A fundamental principle of Neighbourhood Plans is that they must conform to higher level policy, and the highest level policy of all is the law of the land. Unfortunately planning law clearly states that conversion of offices into flats does not require any form of planning or change of use permission. I have raised this matter personally with both our Member of Parliament and the Minister for Planning on a number of occasions, and our disillusion with the way this law has been applied in Thame is well known but, whilst we might have some small influence on future policy reviews, we were powerless to resist this most unwelcome development in Thame.

The Neighbourhood Plan is and will remain a strong barrier to speculative, windfall, or unsuitable development in Thame and I am committed to defending it against all threats for as long as I remain an elected representative of the people of Thame.

Mike Dyer
Thame Town Councillor

Dear Editor, I write with reference to the letter from A Conrad on your website concerning the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council to grant planning permission for two commercial units on land at Cotmore Wells Farm and, more particularly, the role of the Town Council in that process.

In this regard, any planning application considered by the Town Council (and District Council) is assessed in the context of the legal framework provided by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act which (in Section 38(6)) essentially requires that all decisions on planning applications should be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises a range of documents of which the Thame Neighbourhood Plan is one component.

The Town Council, in its formal response to the District Council on the planning application, fully recognised that the proposals were a Departure from the Neighbourhood Plan, but considered that in view of the proposed occupiers of the units and the benefits of the proposals, namely:

Retaining ‘local’ jobs in Thame;
Facilitating the expansion of two local businesses;
Creating additional employment in Thame;
Secondary economic benefits from retaining existing and creating new business linkages; and
Off-setting for loss of existing employment land/building through permitted development

that these factors were, in combination, sufficient to justify a Departure from the Neighbourhood Plan.

The decision of the Town Council was thus clearly recorded and made in a rational and logical manner that balanced the degree of conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan against the benefits that the proposed scheme would deliver – all in accordance with the requirements of Section of 38(6) of the Act. Moreover, the decision recognised the unique circumstances of the two companies involved and, in so doing, is not a decision that otherwise impacts on the weight and strength to be attributed to the Neighbourhood Plan as part of the Development Plan and in determining future planning applications in the Parish.

Helen Stewart BEM
Thame Town Clerk

Dear Editor,  I am writing to raise awareness of how easily the Thame Neighbourhood Plan has been overridden as I do not think that the majority of residents of Thame are aware. It is disappointing that the plan has been deviated from at such an early stage and should bring in to question its validity. 

South Oxfordshire District Council approved a planning application (P14/S1347/FUL) for the development of two new industrial units on land at Cotmore Well Farms (opposite the DAF site on the ring road, alongside the Phoenix Track) on 27th August 2014. This is site B on the plan and allocated for employment but the planning application that has been approved is 50% larger than the area allocated for employment on this site on the Thame Neighbourhood Plan.

In June Thame Town Council recommended this application be approved despite the fact the proposals are contrary to the plan. Thame Town Council list the benefits of the development on the homepage of their website but fail to highlight this is a deviation from their plan.

The Plan allocated three hectares of land for employment on the Cotmore Wells site, the development now approved comprises of 4.6 hectares for the development and 2.3 for drainage and ecological mitigation, a total area of 6.9 hectares.

In my opinion, the large vacant industrial sites that exist in Thame should be developed in preference to greenfield land and why industrial units are being converted into flats when fields are being destroyed for industry is beyond me, this aside I want the residents of Thame to be aware that the Neighbourhood plan is not worth the paper on which it is written.

A Conrad, Thame

ED. The SODC Planning Committee Report here sets out the reasons for recommending approval of this application, over the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. http://democratic.southoxon.gov.uk/documents/

Dear Editor,  As a local resident and patron of Elms park, I was appalled to find out that someone had (Ed. applied for ?) planning permission to change the layout, look and feel of one of Thame’s beautiful open spaces. I am also deeply disappointed that the time chosen to put in the application has been done during the school holidays, removing the ability of local residents to have their say on things which will change the outlook and feel of a publicly owned space. I have also seen the plans and to be honest it’s quite possibly the worst idea I think I have ever seen printed on paper.  The developers should be ashamed of themselves for thinking they could scar our town with Lego houses, on land we all own, by dangling carrots of new furniture and play parks…

I am calling for the town council to put a stop to this development and not make a mockery of the good work they have done in asking the people of Thame where future developments should be. This whole thing has been piggy backed in under the guise of a decent town plan.

I look forward to others’ comments.

Alan Hutchinson

DEAR Editor,  The latest ploy in the attempt to build houses on Elms Field is a planning application to ‘improve’ Elms Park – land which is owned by Thame Council, which means owned by Thame residents. Strangely, this application is made by the developer, not by the Council, which surely needs no consent to improve the park. The situation becomes suspect when the so-called ‘improvements’ are examined.

The valuable and mature trees which the developer and Planning Consent applicant, Rectory Homes, wishes to remove are in Elms field, not the park, so how do they get involved in a park improvement application? The benefit is entirely to Rectory because a line of their proposed houses are shown situated within a few metres of the park / Elms Field fenceline. Furthermore, since the houses will never be built if Thame residents are listened to, there is no point in chopping down the trees in advance.

Also, from the park’s point of view, the basketball court is perfectly okay where it is – but its position does not suit Rectory who do not want it in close proximity to their hoped-for houses.

Same with the mounds. These destroy the park’s historical ridge and furrow archaeology, which corresponds with the burgage plot orientation of the town of Thame. The mounds are simply a cheap way for Rectory to get rid of spoil emanating from the digging of house foundations.

Same again with the proposed new path between Elms field and the park. It is of no benefit to anybody other than the possible future owners of Rectory’s expensive new homes. Furthermore, its creation contravenes the contract which the Council signed in 1948. That conveyance deed makes it clear that the gift of land for the park was made on the understanding that the Elms and its environment, which includes Elms field, would be protected and that there would be no right of access from one to the other. Councillors who renege on this contractural obligation risk being sued by the constituents they are supposed to represent.

Why, one may ask, is the current Town Council appearing to collude in the so-called ‘improvement’ application?

Thame’s residents and friends should be aware of any ‘smoke and mirrors’. They can sign the petition against development on Elms field, either by logging in to elmspetition.org.uk  or by by signing a paper copy at PetCare in Cornmarket.

Dear Editor, I am grateful to the East Thame Residents’ Association for its July Newsletter about the current consultation on additional housing in South Oxfordshire, which ends on July 23, and, as I understand it, could supersede all the co-operation and effort and agreements which went into our own Neighbourhood Plan.

I note that the East Thame Residents’ Association says it is regrettable that our own Plan has been challenged by this, and adds: ‘It has always been the fact, however, that SODC, as the ultimate planning authority, could amend the housing figures in the plan. The Neighbourhood Plan is a barrier but ultimately a moral one only.’  It calls for support for our Town Council in defending Thame’s character.

I wonder what the hundreds of residents who took part in good faith in the original consultations would have thought if they had been told point blank and openly at the start that all their efforts might make, in fact, not a bit of practical difference.

I’m pretty sure some of us suspected as much – at all levels of our local participation – but still gave the process the benefit of the doubt.

Our trust, it seems, was in vain.

Norman Brand
Thame

DEAR Editor

The Mayor, Jeanette Matelot Green, seems to have totally misunderstood the situation re the dismissal of the CAAC. Firstly this apparently happened at the town council AGM on the 13 may and not as a request to the Grants Panel.

The CAAC is not a group which needs funding. They were set up to assist the Town Council and SODC, in January 1984, by looking at Plans in the Conservation Area. To do this they need to meet in the Town Hall as it is unlikely that they would be able to remove the plans and meet to discuss them elsewhere. The proviso of a meeting place in the Town Hall is set out in the Terms of Reference both in 1984 and again at a later date.

The meeting does not cost anything as all correspondence is by email (minutes, agendas etc) and the meetings are made when the cleaner is in the building, so that no one has to be employed to unlock or lock up the building. The point of the group is to discuss the plans together and come to an agreed recommendation as a whole and not as individuals thus using a corporate knowledge of the towns buildings and their history. Whilst the Mayor and Chair of Planning may have building expertise they have not had the length of time and intimate knowledge of the Listed Buildings in the Town that the members of CAAC have.

Once we agree that the Mayor is talking about the wrong meeting, the wrong issue ie funding and that the Town Clerk was at the meeting on the 13 May the whole of her letter becomes totally invalid and misleading.

I still suggest that CAAC are reinstated.

Ron Clanfield
Thame