Dear Editor, I have a glossy leaflet from South Oxfordshire District Council titled ‘Local Plan 2031’. Referring to Neighbourhood Planning Areas it includes the words ‘….in order to provide the levels of growth we need, and to be fair to all communities in the district, we may be required to consider increasing the amounts of housing provided in neighbourhood plan areas, as well as in other areas not covered by or preparing neighbourhood plans.’
So what was the point of all the effort and time we all spent in Thame on agreeing a Neighbourhood Plan?
A cynic might have expected something like this. And a cynic would have been right. I wonder what those who serve our community at all levels of Government think about this development.
It is a sad indictment of Thame Town Council that they seem to have adopted an air of total contempt with regard to the history and conservation of the town.
We have already had the outrage of the Elms field being put into the Neighbourhood Plan ‘through the back-door’. Now we hear they have disbanded the Thame Conservation Advisory Committee by withdrawing support and facilities.
The Conservation Committee consists of an excellent team, steeped with knowledge and history of the town who have made a valuable contribution over the last 30 years. To disband this group is nothing more than a vindictive ‘toss the toys out of the pram’ decision by the Town Clerk, with questionable logic behind it, and no Councillor had the courage to oppose her at the time of the meeting where this decision was made.
The Town Clerk has a disturbing enthusiasm to pursue the Elms field development and obviously will try to eliminate anything that may hinder it. Already certain Councillors (have said) that they enjoyed, and needed, the minutes from the Conservation Committee in order to make informed decisions. Surely if the council want to retain any credibility, this issue needs to be reviewed and the Conservation Committee re-instated.
The Clerk has stated that: “In light of the neighbourhood plan”, there is no need for a Conservation Committee. Utter nonsense. That plan does not over-ride the need for the planning department in the Parish, and SODC to assess all applications. Moreover the plan cannot possibly anticipate all future applications in the Conservation Area.
One final point of order. The Thame Conservation Advisory Committee was not ‘self appointed’ as suggested by the Clerk. It was appointed by the Council on the January 10, 1984, to give: “valuable independent advice” to both Thame Council and South Oxfordshire District Council.
DEAR Editor, This is really an open letter to my friends near and far, to let them know that these days I do not pick up the phone until I have been able to recognise the caller. If I’m out of range of my phone I check later on 1471, or the 1571 message system. This is because too many times I have rushed to the phone or clambered out of my chair to answer a call, only to be met by a silence, some background noise and then someone unconvincingly named Tom, Dick or Harry, or Joan or Yvonne or Sharon calling from far beyond these shores, inviting me to give them information. This I do not wish to give.
Sometimes one might be anxiously awaiting an expected call, from friend, relative, employer or doctor. Then, to the nuisance call from Tom or Dick et al. is added disappointment, even more worry. If one is not particularly mobile, then the rush to pick up the call adds insult to injury – or perhaps the other way round.
If the phone tells me that the call is International I do not pick it up. If it says the number is withheld I worry, because sometimes a doctor say, or hospital or official of some sort, may use a private line. Having missed such a call it may take some time, even all day, to retrieve the contact.
I have noticed one persistent call from what looks like a real number somewhere in the UK. So far I have not replied. I have had several from it recently. So I decided to Google it 02031291891 .
A Thame resident has spoken of his fears for the consequences of building on the old pig farm in Oxford Road, Thame, one of the designated sites in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan.
Photo taken from Ford bridge on Oxford Rd looking west across Cuttle Brook field towards by-pass 11 am this morning – by Barry Yates
Barry Yates, a member of the Oxford Road Residents Association, which opposed Site F, as it is known in the TNP, to being adopted as suitable for development in the district council’s Core Strategy, said the following:
“We have lived here for 30 years and myself in Thame for nearly all my life. This is the worst flooding ever [I am too young to remember 1947]. The entire bank of the Cuttle brook has never been broken before. The water is up to the top of the Oxford Road bridge, with nowhere else to go but into the field! The field next to our house in Cuttlebrook Gardens is completely flooded up to the edge of our garden fence.”
“Water is flowing at the foot of the hill in the Oxford Road out of drains and from a manhole cover by Waterloo Cottage. There is raw sewerage, mainly on the path, spilling out. It happened last time it rained heavily; the drains cannot cope. This is one of the main reasons we opposed any development on site F, and so vigorously against 600 houses there under the initial SODC core strategy. With 203 allocated under the Thame Neighbourhood Plan as a minimum, with this possibly increasing to 326 if the Lord Williams’s amalgamation does not proceed, the impact on more widespread flooding cannot be overestimated. “
The adoption of Site F was very controversial during the consultation stage of the Core Strategy and the TNP, particularly when Thame Town Council switched its preference from Site D to Site F, attracting opposition from residents groups such as The Oxford Road RA and residents of The Renaissance (Rycotewood site), over flooding fears.
The Developer has always maintained that flooding on the proposed site could be prevented with the use of containment ponds in the lower corner of the site.
A WAR of words, over part of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, has developed between Thame Town Council, a local developer and a group of Thame residents opposed to building news homes on an open space in the town.
The meadow land at The Elms in Thame where a development of 45 homes is proposed
The row over the ‘how,’ and ‘whether’ the proposed Elms Field development was legitimately included in the TNP has now reached the point of threats of legal action following letters published in the local media.
The leading opposition group, which calls itself The ‘elmspetition’ Group and claims to have hundreds of signatures, has today issued the following statement about the situation as they see it, hoping to raise more awareness of their case and stimulate wider discussion. The statement reads:
“Our main reaction is ‘methinks he doth protest too much’. There is nothing wrong with Rectory Homes proposing development on land they own but it seemed a bit strange that originally the Elms was supposed to have been purchased as a retirement home for Mr and Mrs Vickers, and that surveyors turned up so quickly after the purchase to survey the field – in preparation for a housing proposal?
“It helps with any presentation to the planning authority to show that the public have been informed and that there is little opposition to a scheme. However, the Developer’s November presentation in Thame town hall, can surely not be considered a success from Rectory’s point of view. Rectory’s latest planning consultants, who are based in Solihull, were there, together with Mr David Ullathorne, a Directory of Rectory Homes, to answer questions.
“Witnesses state that, following adversarial questions fromP members of the public, Mr Ullathorne ‘exploded’, saying ‘The Elms has always been in the Town Plan, and was not slipped in out of nowhere, as I keep hearing today. It all comes from a man called Peter Webb, who has been misleading people.’
“Mr Webb has confirmed that, when challenged on this slur, Mr Ullathorne was unable to substantiate his assertion, but he did not deny that he had made it. All this is on record. We counter by saying that the site was not ‘always in the plan’.
“The Planning Group within Thame Town Council were charged by SODC with selecting a site or sites for the building of 775 houses over the next 20 years. To assist in this task, the planning authority of South Oxfordshire provided a detailed analysis of several potential sites, with a capacity well in excess of what is said to be needed. They clearly examined the merits and disadvantages of each. Elms Field was not one of these sites and thus there has been no analysis in regard to it. Also, we say that the Council exceeded its remit in allocating housing to a site other than those on the original list.
“While Mr Vickers claims to be ‘doing exactly what the government is urging’ by building houses in what he says is a ‘sustainable location’, what the government has actually asked is simply for land to be identified for 775 houses to be built in Thame over the next 20 years. Fulfilling this task does not need Elms Field which, with access and services problems, is the opposite of sustainable.
“In regard to access, the council rejected seven houses on the Old Dairy site on Southern Road, Thame, due to the extreme congestion already existing on Southern Road and Nelson Street, so how can it justify 45 using the same streets?
“Mr Vickers’ letter to the local paper said that there had been accusations that he and the Town Council had acted improperly. Our counter to that is, that there has been nothing published to this effect, so far as we know, so this suggestion is from Mr Vickers himself. There is actually nothing illegal or wrong with offering a site, so why so sensitive? Maybe it has to do with the way things were done.
“Could it be related to the fact that the Mayor and Town Clerk have refused to supply minutes of a meeting that took place in November 2012, where development on Elms Field was discussed? The Clerk wouldn’t even say who attended, or who set up or initiated the meeting. This clear refusal has been reported to a higher authority, as a contravention of the Freedom of Information Act.
“This town hall meeting followed an earlier site meeting held to discuss a ‘Heritage Assessment’ concerning the field’s historical relationship with The Elms. This assessment was not the work of English Heritage but that of a firm of planning consultants, the Nash Partnership. They were commissioned and paid by Rectory Homes. Nothing wrong with Rectory using all means available to try to ease through the idea of building on a site which the planning authority, some years ago, designated as ‘important open space’, but people should be aware. It is called “openness” and is supposed to be government policy relating to the behaviour of Parliament and Councils.
“English Heritage itself has been more forthcoming than Thame’s Town Clerk. Two, named representatives of English Heritage, and the Conservation Officer from SODC, attended both the site meeting and the town hall meeting that followed. The others present, say English Heritage, were the Town Clerk, the Thame Council Committee Services Officer (to keep the minutes which we are not allowed to see), three persons from The Nash Partnership and Simon Vickers himself. No Councillors?
“At this meeting, English Heritage and SODC Conservation conceded, on the basis of the aforementioned assessment, that maybe the field was not historically so closely connected to the house as they had previously thought and conceded that, subject to seeing detailed plans, possibly 35 houses on the site might be tolerable.
“Having closely examined the report, we find that much of it is ‘filler’ material. More importantly, the historical facts are frequently, we believe, plain wrong and the bias in regard to conclusions questionable. A thorough analysis of the report has been sent to English Heritage, with a request that they thoroughly review the matter.
“It might be thought strange that no member of the town council’s Planning Group was present at this November 8, meeting (English Heritage provided the date that the council refused to supply) but that 14 councillors were present at a full Council meeting called for on November 20, less than two weeks later. The minutes of this second meeting are totally inadequate and unsigned in the space provided for the purpose. It is not stated who was the chairman, who had initiated the meeting and there is no sign of an agenda. What any Councillors had to say is unrecorded except for the fact within the concluding summary that the meeting had agreed to increase the number of houses to 45. It is stated that one unnamed Councillor (this turned out to be Cllr Don Butler) said he was totally against any development on Elms Field. It is recorded that he was told: ‘This is not a Councillor matter’. When we later asked: ‘In that case, why were Cllr Butler and the other Councillors there?’ the Town Clerk replied, ‘It was not a Council meeting’. Since the minutes were headed ‘Meeting of the Thame Town Council’, this was challenged, and met by silence.
“Other questions arise from these so- called minutes. Councillors were guided to vote to accept the whole plan, now with 45 houses on Elms Field, despite any doubts they might have on specific parts. ‘The plan has been through rigorous testing with the community’ they were told; by whom is not stated.
“We have to ask whether this is correct. Surely any MP or Councillor can propose amendments for debate by his or her fellows. Not in Thame? The ‘minutes’ then go on to state: ‘This change (to 45 presumably) has been made as a result of both feedback forms from the community and a very late letter received from English Heritage, three weeks after the close of the consultation period’.
“Hang on! The feedback forms showed 82%+ against development on Elms Field. Also the ‘late’ letter, which is addressed to the Clerk, was in line with the original opinion of English heritage and concluded that development on this site would be ‘deeply damaging’. They strongly urged that alternative sites be pursued.
“It is therefore asked – Was the letter actually tabled? One has to suspect not, because it does not seem conceivable that all 14 Councillors would have ignored it.
“Incredible as it may seem, this whole meeting took just 27 minutes.
“Regarding minutes generally, it is revealing to look at minute format in West Berks. Just log on to – http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=15133 There is no need to read the lot but just notice how the subject matter is dealt with at the beginning and everything people said is recorded.
“In an original letter to Thame.Net from another correspondent, Richard Jeffries, mention was made of planning consultant Jake Collinge’s involvement with the Town Neighbourhood Plan, this paragraph being subsequently edited from the letter at the request of Mr Vickers. Why?
“That letter referred to the fact that Jake Collinge was a former employee at Rectory Homes. Well he was, as Planning and Development Manager. Subsequently, as an independent consultant, operating from an office at Rectory House in Haddenham, he has had Rectory as a frequent client, including in 2012 and 2013. Mr. Collinge was introduced by the Town Clerk as Planning consultant to the Council, when the Clerk set up a meeting with elmpetition group member, Peter Webb, at the request of Councillor Butler, to familiarise herself with the reasons why people were opposed to development in Elms Field.
“Mr Webb pointed out that the reasons were surely clear from the petition which hundreds of people had signed. Neither the Clerk nor the consultant admitted to having seen the petition. Mr Webb thought this strange because a copy had certainly gone through the door of Cllr Dyer, the leader of the Neighbourhood Plan Group, who lived in Park Street. Later, when checking the website of Mr Collinge and noticing his address, he realised that he himself had dealt with that street and put the petition through that letterbox.
“Whether or not it is ethical for Mr Collinge to advise the Council, given his previous connection to Rectory Homes, is for others to decide.
“In regard to the final distribution of leaflets urging acceptance of the town plan, why did the promoters think it necessary to remind people that a No vote was pointless and that 775 houses were coming to Thame anyway. The number was actually not the issue. Where the houses would be built was the issue. There was no mention of locations in that leaflet. Opponents observe that many people did not vote, having been told that Yes was the only answer. Others voted Yes as instructed. “Is it right that the subsequent Adoption of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan should now be represented by the Council as that Thame residents have agreed to the development of Elms Field? Plainly they have not.
“The scheme’s opponents point out that the Planning Manager at SODC has said that the plan can be modified but that this initiative has to come from Thame. Thus Elms Field can be taken out as a site without affecting the rest of the plan.
“Nobody seems to be positively in favour of development in Elms Field but Councillors need to be told to admit their error and to act to correct it. In doing so, they will uphold that part of the Plan which promises to protect existing open space. They will also be acknowledging that they are there to represent their constituents, who in any street survey, are firmly against destroying an important open space.”
The elmspetition Group elmspetition@hotmail.co.uk (name & address of correspondent supplied)
EDITOR: Do you agree with the elmspetition Group, or do you have a different view? We want to hear from YOU
AFTER a slow start, a steady stream of local people went to Thame Town Hall yesterday to examine the plans for the proposed housing development on what is known in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan as Site C.
Exhibiition board showing artist’s impression of some of the homes proposed for Site C
The visitors, including local councillors and the Mayor of Thame, Peter Lambert, were able to study the proposals in detail and to ask questions of the team from Wimpey and Commercial Estates, and to express their own views about the proposals.
The Site C proposal is for 187 homes in total on land East of Thame in Thame Park Road, bordering Thame Park itself and Wenman Road, the B4012. The proposals include new allotments and space for a new burial ground for when St Mary’s Church yard becomes full, which it is due to do in the not-too-distant future.
The plans for the development of Site C, show proposals for two access points from Wenman Road, a pedestrian access point from Thame Park Road, and several new footpaths and cycle ways, including pedestrian access across open farm land behind the site, to Cuttle Brook.
Wimpey own the half of the site nearest Thame Park Road, and their spokesman said that they were likely to be submitting Planning Permission very soon, and hope to start building in the Autumn. The other half of the site, which will be included in the Planning application, is currently owned by Commercial Estates. Their spokesman said that once planning permission is granted and they have established points of design etc, they will sell their half to a developer, and it will probably be built over a longer time scale.
Although the murmering in room was generally in favour of the plans, the main concerns seemed to be around potential rat-running through smaller roads like Croft Road and East Street, to get to the town from Wenman Road, increased traffic in Chinnor Road and Park Street, and the most talked-about, the fact that only 15 -20% of the new homes will be two- bedroomed and therefore affordable to first time buyers and smaller family units and single people – a particular need in the town, many of them felt.
A local estate agent at the exhibition reported that a two bed property in Lea Park that he sold in October, went for £189,000, whereas a similar property last week sold for over £220,000, illustrating he said, an acute shortage of such smaller properties on the market in the town.
A Wimpey spokesman explained that the minimum percentage of smaller properties for developments in the district was a South Oxfordshire Dictrict Council planning policy.
What do you think? Let us have your comments below
HAVE your say on the latest proposals for Site C (Part of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan) and help shape Thame’s future.
Commercial Estates Group and Taylor Wimpey are holding a public exhibition to give residents the opportunity to view and comment on the latest proposals for Site C .
Last Friday I attended the Public Consultation on the imminent planning application for development of The Elms parkland but my fears for its future remain.
Proposal for development of land at The Elms for housing
I witnessed heated exchanges between the public and the developer’s planning team (Barton Willmore); hardly surprising as nobody I have met approves of the development of the Elms, other than those who stand to gain financially or suffer loss of reputation for having persuaded Thame to adopt a Town Plan with The Elms Development woven into it. I was surprised by the abrasive manner of the Barton Willmore team, given the invitation to a public consultation, and their brief was clearly not to listen to public concerns, but rather to dismiss them as unfounded.
The event was lacking in detail with no information packs for the public to take away. Conceptual designs were unclear and scales of buildings were misleading (even the architect admitted this). The proposed new public footpath through the Thame Memorial Garden area had been removed from the display drawings but remained on the plans submitted with a Barton Wilmore/Rectory Homes report released in the Gazette on the same day.
Back in the spring of this year we were told that by voting for the Thame Town Plan we would be ensuring that we had a say in the future housing development of Thame. One has to ask is this being borne out? Do any Thame constituents want 44, or for that matter any, houses on The Elms parkland? Meanwhile the Town Plan continues to win planning awards and Thame Councillors pat themselves on their backs. It is ironic that an article was published on page 22 of the Gazette last week entitled “Another award for Thame’s popular plan”. After accepting the award Cllr Dyer apparently said “that it was further recognition of Thame’s leading role in planning, despite the Council (Thame Town Council) having little to no previous experience in the area”. This is rather worrying as the developer’s planning consultants, Barton Willmore, told me that the design of the proposed dwellings had been heavily influenced by Thame Town Councillors (and notably apparently not the Conservation Area Advisory Committee, English Heritage, SODC Planning Conservation, Thame Historical Society, the Neighbourhood Police Team or John Hampden School).
Certainly the integrity of the Town Plan is to be tested by the Elms planning application, which Barton Wilmore said will be submitted after Christmas. Do the people of Thame really want to lose valuable green space within the town to yet more infill overdevelopment? The developer is claiming that they will enhance Elms Park, when in reality they will be hijacking it to compensate the overdevelopment of their own site. The proposals include the moving of the multi-use games area, which is considered undesirable next to the prestigious development; excluding social housing, which will apparently be traded off for an investment in the Angus Fire site; and landscaping of the Elms Park, which is an innovative cover for disposing of excavated construction spoil at the cost of destroying the mediaeval ridge and furrow land archaeology which is still clearly visible in Elms Park.
Support can be lodged at elmspetition@hotmail.co.uk or leave your name and address at Petcare. Richard Jeffries Thame
Flash back to the Public Consultation on the Thame Neighbourhood Plan
THE controversial, proposed Elms housing development in Thame is to be the subject of a Public Consultation Event.
The public are being invited to view the proposals prior to the submission of a planning application, at Thame Town Hall on Friday, November 29, between 2.3o pm and 7.30 pm.
It’s not clear from the public notice in the local press, who is carrying out the consultation, but apparently ‘Members of the project team’ will be on hand to answer questions and discuss the proposals.
The proposal has attracted opposition from many local people who have apparently signed a petition against the plans (see LINK), and others who have questioned the proposals’ inclusion in the The Thame Neighbourhood Plan.
THAME Town Council has responded to criticism about how the proposed housing development on Elms Field, was included in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. (See LINK)
Concept plan produced by Nash Partnership for the land owner planning to develope land for housing land at The Elms, Thame
In a statement today in response to a request for comment, made to the Town Clerk, Helen Stewart, she said: “The Neighbourhood Plan, which includes an allocation of up to 45 homes within the perimeter of The Elms was thoroughly tested, as were all the sites, through the development of the Neighbourhood Planning and the Independent Examiner’s scrutiny of all the data collected during that process.
“All the sites identified within the Neighbourhood Plan will still have to go through South Oxfordshire District Council’s planning process. Any correspondence in connection with these will be considered during that process.
“The Town Council has no further comment to make and will consider each application as it comes forward.”
