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 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:
“In response to a letter from Rectory Homes chairman, Simon Vickers in the local press on the January 10, the elmspetition group would like to respond to as wide an audience as possible.
“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
Leave a Reply