Developer’s ‘misleading’ sign should come down, says council

THAME Town Council is to write to a land owner where a large advertisement board offering land for Commercial purposes has been erected, asking for it to be taken down.

The decision to write to the land owner was made by the council following a presentation by a concerned resident of Pickenfields, Thame, opposite the green field site where the sign suddenly appeared two weeks ago. The wording of the sign appears to be aimed at attracting expressions of interest from third parties regarding the availability of employment land.

Part of the sign reads: “ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT BY STOFORD”

As the resident pointed out, and confirmed by the town council’s Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer, Graeme Markland, the sign is probably unlawful as it has not been the subject of planning consent, the land where the sign is situated is not included within the Thame Neighbourhood Plan as Employment land, and there is no planning consent in place for that site.

The resident, Mr Duncan Nickless, told the committee: “Other developers will see it (the sign) and want to erect their signs all around the town. This action undermines the confidence of the public in the Neighbourhood Plan.”  He added that he understood that the developer was carrying out a ‘needs analysis’ for employment land in the town, but was concerned that it would not be ‘credible’ or ‘independent’. When he suggested that there was a need for an independent look at the needs of the town for commercial needs, the Chair of the Thame NPCC, Cllr Catherine Jones, replied that the town council was already in the process of seeking professional help with this aspect of the revised Neighbourhood Plan it is about to undertake.

Cllr Bob Austin said: “Residents on whose trust the first Neighbourhood Plan was built on are antagonised by this sign.  It is insensitive and misleading and we must express our disapproval.”

The matter of the offending sign has already been referred to South Oxfordshire Planning Enforcement who were unavailable for comment at the time of publication.