Thame.net

Category: Thame Community Forum

  • Opposition growing to Thame housing development

    A petition of signatures from people opposed to houses being built on land adjacent to Elms Park in Thame, is growing, and the man leading the opposition has now written to English Heritage, and copied the letter to all Town and District Councillors. He now wants to inform the general public and to invite them to add their names to the petition by emailing their support to:  elmspetition@hotmail.co.uk 

    The Elms field where the proposed housing development will be, as seen from the air

    The man behind the campaign is Peter Webb, who lives in Thame. His letter reads:

    ” ‘Dear Councillor,
     The Elms Petition Group would like you to be aware of the substantial opposition which exists in regard to housing development in Elms Field, Thame. Please be aware that, during the Thame Plan consultation process, 82% of people who responded on the subject of building in Elms Field were against the idea. Why did the Plan Group ignore this?
     
    “We should make you aware also that the Thame Mayor is being served notice under the Freedom of Information Act, to respond to requests for information relating to un-minuted meetings, agendas and participants etc. relating to the unneeded inclusion of Elms Field as a site for development within the Thame Plan. The following letter, sent to English Heritage yesterday is self explanatory.’
     
    “Dear Mr. Peats,

    This letter is from the 500, so far, residents of Thame who have signed a petition against development on Elms Field.

    Your email of the 31st July to one of our number, states that you were informed by the developer’s then agent, the Nash partnership, that the land to the East was in different ownership in the early 19th century. This is surely not so and we find it surprising that you have not asked for a copy of the 1826 document which, we have told you, shows the house and all the 13-odd acre field in the ownership of a Paul Blackall.

    You have also been advised that we have a complete record of ownership, from then up to the present day, and the only change that occurred was the gifting of some 3 acres, by Leonard Purser, to Thame, to create a Town Park.

    And yet you don’t want to review this data? Neither are you willing to insist that the Nash partnership send you a copy of the material they presented to you in the presence of the (then) South Oxfordshire District Council Conservation Officer, Jamie Preston.

    It is quite unacceptable that Nash can resist giving you a copy of the material they presented to you, on the basis that they no longer work for the developer who now owns The Elms. You should have obtained a copy for your records at the time you met with Nash but are surely entitled to insist that you be given a copy now. The current lack of a relationship between Nash and the developer is completely immaterial.

    The fact is, your letter of the 25th October 2012, to the Thame Town Clerk assessed The Elms and the field as a valuable survivor of the mini estates that were common in small towns like Thame in the 19th century. The field has long been, and still is, a green lung in the centre of Thame. Is it not the job of English Heritage to preserve such green space? your letter is quite specific in emphasising that the field area both to the South and to the East are important to the setting of the Elms and you record that SODC Conservation took action in 2006 to extend the Conservation Area to include the Field and Park. You repeat their statement that the Park and Field together represent an “Important open space” in Thame.

    Your letter was quite firm in finding the development proposal “deeply damaging”. So what has changed and why are you unwilling to examine whether there is evidence of manipulation in this whole affair?

    It should be pointed out also that the setting of The Poplars, also a listed building and until the Toovey sale in 1928 in the same ownership as The Elms, is adversely affected by the proposed development of the Eastern part of the field. Surely ownership of the field is not relevant to that fact.

    You should be made aware also that the meeting you and Jamie Preston attended, where, due to suspect information provided by Nash, you accepted the possibility of building 35 houses, has no minutes to record who said what. The Town Clerk refuses to explain this lack. Who was present? The developer? Who else? Why is this, so far as we know, the only meeting held with a developer?

    Then, why did the Town Council later call a second meeting, where they upped the number of house to a maximum of 45? Who arranged that meeting? Why are the minutes so lacking in content? Why was one Councillor who said he was against any development in Elms field told (by whom is not recorded) “That is not a Council matter”. Also why does the Town Clerk now claim that it wasn’t a Council meeting , when the so-called minutes are clearly headed “Meeting of the Thame Town Council”?

    Why was the site being considered at all? There was no need for it since the potential housing sites suggested to the Town Council by SODC were more that adequate to accommodate the 775 houses allocated to Thame. Each of those sites had developers associated and awaiting a decision by the Council as to how the houses would be allocated. Did any of those developers attend meetings with the Plan Group to push their sites? We think not.

    It doesn’t directly concern your opinion of the importance of retaining Elms field as an open space, either as a pasture, as it has traditionally been or in some other suitable form but, as background, you might be interested to know that the Town Clerk went into print to tell citizens that there would be no point in voting “No” to the town plan because 775 houses were going to be built anyway. So, no point voting at all. Which many didn’t. The point is that the 775 was not the issue. Where to build was the issue and the “Yes for Thame Campaign” leaflet makes no mention at all of where the Councillors had decided buildings would go. So people had no idea what they were voting for. That same leaflet is inaccurate and misleading in several other ways, which are not the subject of this letter.

    In conclusion, You are asked, by a rather substantial number of citizens, to re-examine your position. Were you misled and should you reinstate the opinions contained in your letter to the Town Clerk?

    A copy of this letter is being sent to all Town and SODC Councillors, SODC Planning, and to the press. Thame Councillors should ask themselves whether they have been unduly influenced by interested parties and also how they have come to accept the idea of 44 houses jockeying to get to and from the Elms Field site via Nelson Street and Southern Road, when they turned down the idea of 7 houses on the Old Dairy site, due to the fact that those same two streets are severely congested.”

    Signed, The Elms Petition Group

    Anyone who wishees to join the petition against The Elms development, can do so by emailing a list of petitioners (over 18s) together with a house address to elmspetition@hotmail.co.uk. For people who do not have access to the web, they can drop a note of their support, with names and address, in an envelope adressed to Elms Petition, at Petcare in the Cornmarket, Thame.

    Addresses outside OX9 will be listed within the petitioner list as “Friends of Thame”

    LINKS to previous news items on this topic: https://www.thame.net/?p=7949
                                                                                           https://www.thame.net/?p=7950

     

     

  • ‘What a wonderful advert for Thame’

    Peter Lambert, the Mayor of Thame, shares a 'cheesey' jokes with stall holders, What's cooking, Thame
    Peter Lambert, the Mayor of Thame, shares a ‘cheesey’ jokes with stall holders, What’s cooking, Thame

    What a wonderful day Thame had last Saturday at the Food Festival where thousands from all parts of the country came to enjoy a veritable feast of tasty delights. Over 150 stall-holders presented Thame and its visitors with a celebration of exciting, delicious, and mouth-watering real food and drink. The Town was bracketed by two demonstration kitchens where TV chefs jostled with other skilled chefs to cook good, honest, real food recipes throughout the day. The celebrities signed their books and chatted to the customers. Champagne Masterclasses and wine tasting was provided free at the Thame Players Theatre.

    Visitors waited patiently for variously prepared delicious meals of meats, pizzas, wraps, breads, and confectioneries enjoying their food and drink while listening to music and chatting to friends.  A vast array of fresh foods, preserves, pickles, jams, fish, meats, cheeses etc could be purchased. 

    What a wonderful advert this was for visitors to Thame showcasing its own shops, cafes, pubs, architecture, history and above all its hospitality. Our visitors went away able to return to Thame to shop, to site see and to relax in a venue that they experienced as friendly and welcoming.

    Congratulations to those who organised and provided Thame with one of its most memorable and enjoyable days in many a long time.

    Andy Gunn
    Ormond Road
    Thame

     

  • Cromwell Avenue resident’s appeal over speeding

     

    DEAR Editor/LPRA/TV Police/MP John Howell//Thame News/Thame Mayor, As a resident of Lea Park and a member of LPRA I would like you to sort something out NOW. Cromwell Avenue makes up about 5% of the total residents.

    Cromwell is the only link road.

    All the other ones are dead ends.

    Why then do we get cars and motor bike coming past at 40/50 MPH?

    If I drove at that speed down some of their roads there would be hell to pay.

    There are many of us at this end that are very frustrated about the situation.

    Some years ago I got traffic down here and once people see them they tell each other.

    Traffic basically said that until there was a “fatality” nothing could be done.

    In High Wycombe, a road that was a “rat run” the residents paid for speed humps, (Big ones)

    The traffic now goes round the long way which in fact is faster.

    What about: 20 mph limit. Make Cromwell Avenue one way with pinch points. Double yellow lines all the way down on just one side but staggered so it slows traffic. More radar van traps. They can park up in many places. How about the locals being trained to use hand held radar guns? The police can at least send out warnings.

    Looking forward to a positive reply.
    M.Smith
    Cromwell Avenue
    Thame

    PHOTO: Sunset over Cromwell Avenue, Thame

  • Thame resident challenges Neighbourhood Plan ‘Yes’ campaigner

    DEAR Editor, Barry Yates’ letter in the local press last week contains a blatant untruth in regard to Elms field. It is completely wrong to state that the field has not been used for grazing for many years. It was used for this purpose up to about a year ago, and two sheep farmers who wish to use the field have since been denied the opportunity to rent, only since the change of ownership. Mr Yates also avoids mentioning, or doesn’t know, that the field is designated as important open space within the conservation area and thus councillors should never have even considered it as a potential housing site.

    It is also misleading to state that a “No” vote will lead inevitably to SODC imposing a massive housing estate on Thame. As for Lea Park, was it not Thame councillors who were responsible for building over a space within the site which had been gifted specifically for open space?

    It is surely possible that SODC and TTC will wake up to the fact that there is no merit in pre-determining where future development will go. Applications to build can be judged when they are made. All that the Town Council and SODC need to do now is to establish where development definitely will not be entertained – e.g the sites on the wrong side of the ringroad – and make it clear that estate- style proposals will not be entertained elsewhere.

    Both councils should realise that they have a duty and right under the localisation rules to fight back against the imposition of excessive housing development. This, by questioning why the government, having disbanded the South East England Development Agency quango, did not also undo the demand for house building which that agency had set in train. SEEDA’s estimate of future need was based on the assumption of increased immigration. Plainly this is contrary to current government policy, which is to reduce immigration. Please note, conservative and lib-dem councillors.

    Claims to have averted huge single development may satisfy some councillors but avoids the reality that 775 is still an unsustainable number for Thame. Only site F can be developed without too great an adverse impact. Possibly also site C, providing that any proposal for the latter includes a good level of tree planting as a barrier between the houses and the industrial estate. The number of houses these two sites can support should be the target.

    I am disturbed also that Mr Yates and his councillor friends seem unaware of the financial realities when it comes to affordable housing. 40% affordable is only achieved by having 60%, by definition, unaffordable.

    The affordable units will probably be a mixture of rental units and shared equity sales, all at pricing levels well below open market value. probably about 60% of that value. The developer has overheads, including financing costs, and needs to make a return on his investment, which includes land costing probably well over £1 million per acre. Result? the 40% “affordable” houses may end up recovering actual build cost but the fact that they contribute nothing to the needed profit on the investment, means that the shortfall is picked up by the other 60%, adding to their selling price.

    Unfortunately this is not the end of the story, because Planning Departments have developed a habit of loading additional costs onto any development, by way of Section 106 agreements. These may be contributions to facilities completely unrelated to the development itself, for example a swimming pool, leisure facility or meeting rooms in some location other than the site concerned. A developer might assume this is going to add £10,000 per unit and this charge has to be recovered from the “unaffordable” houses.

    Even worse, Planning Departments have now invented a new charge called a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). There are reports of this amounting to £50,000 per house. Such an extraordinary level may not be apply locally, who knows? But it is yet another burden on housing cost – and all this has been nodded in into existence by Councillors.

    And given the above, I also have to ask – By what magic is Mr. Yates going to ensure that his affordable houses have large gardens? Does he envisage densities which were applied to council housing in the post war construction era? That would be 8 or 10 to the acre. So a land cost of at least £100,000 before building starts! Amazing thought process!

    All this leaves me in doubt about “The Plan”. What plan? Has anybody received a summary through their letter box? It is complete we are told, but where is it? And is it a plan or is it a list of generalities about more shopping, more employment, more leisure facilities and more green areas and of course, more housing.

    Now a video is on the web. It is nicely produced but it tells you nothing. Except for the fact that the £3,000,000 which the Council says the government will “give” to Thame over the next 15 years turns out to be the CIL I refer to above. So it is not a gift. It is a tax charged against the new housing, to make those (60%) houses even more unaffordable.

    The more I write, the more I feel angry that citizens are being manipulated – particularly when we are told blithely that a No vote is pointless. Really? So what kind of referendum is that? To tell us that Yes is the only alternative is an insult to the intelligence of Thame residents. Also, I am less than impressed by the fact that our MP and Planning Minister are thoughtlessly lending their support to the Plan.

    My annoyed conclusion is that we should vote No and in doing so, give a clear message to the Town Council and SODC to get out of their mutually unco-operative mode and consort a clear plan, with defined elements, where we vote on each separately in order to achieve an agreed whole – and a Plan means a list of positive actions to achieve the objectives, not just a list of those objectives

    Regards
    Peter Webb
    Upper High Street
    Thame

  • ‘Thame Music ‘ Launched By Top Orchestra

    THE world class, Orchestra of St John’s, will perform for the first event of an exciting new collaboration to form ‘Thame Music’.

    The concert will take place at St Mary’s Church, Thame, on Saturday, May 21, at 7.30pm.

    John Lubbock, OSJ’s founder, is the Artistic Director and the programme will include Christine Cairns, Mezzo-soprano, Britten’s Simple Symphony,Respighi Il tramonto, Walton’s Music from Henry V and the Tchaikovsky Serenade for Strings. Tickets availabele on 01844 212834

    Since the OSJ was founded in 1967 by its Artistic Director, John Lubbock, it has built its reputation as one of the UK’s leading orchestras on world-class concerts at the finest festivals and concert halls combined with intimate music making in community settings. It commissions new music, produces recordings and is broadcast on radio and television, further ensuring its international profile and accessibility.

    OSJ Onstage (Leader: Harvey de Souza): Each year, OSJ performs concerts throughout the UK and overseas at leading festivals and concert halls, at its Residency bases and in community settings. Through its unique artistic policy, it presents innovative, integrated and audacious programmes that combine rarely or unperformed pieces with well-known repertoire. Its aim is to give audiences the opportunity to hear something new (unusual or previously unheard works by living composers or those from the past) alongside something familiar.

    OSJ Offstage – a partnership between OSJ and Create: OSJ is nationally acclaimed for its OSJ Offstage programme, run in partnership with Create, the dynamic new arts charity. OSJ OffStage takes a fresh, new approach to making music accessible to the widest possible audience. It promotes new experiences, fosters musical interests and talents, and stimulates participation, creativity and attendance at musical events. Activities include: creative music-making workshops in mainstream and special needs schools, with young offenders and with those who are homeless; concerts for children and for those with specific disabilities; cross-arts projects; informal performances for older people in residential homes and patients in hospices and hospitals; masterclasses; and major community events.

    OSJ Soundynamics – a partnership between OSJ and Create: Through their groundbreaking OSJ Soundynamics training initiative, OSJ and Create run bespoke creative music programmes to meet the training needs of both large and small corporate clients and other employers. Courses, ranging from graduate training programmes and management development seminars to large-scale conferences, use a series of interactive modules that enable participants to explore their creativity and develop sustainable skills including time management, teamwork, communication and leadership. Courses improve employees’ performance, motivation and job satisfaction.