18/10/10…..Not confused about town coucnil but….

Dear Editor, I must congratulate Mike Dyer on being the only Town Councillor out of sixteen, willing to put his head above the political parapet in connection with the possible revisions to the South Oxfordshire District Council’s Core Strategy (read Housing Plans).

Your correspondent, Liz Wiles, inaccurately accuses Mr Dyer of stating ?Site F is favoured by Thame Town Council?, whereas I cannot find this statement within his letters. Even though it might be true, no one is actually saying it from their side of the fence.

It is unfortunate for the Thame Town Councillors that this perception has been engendered by the text contained in the belated letter sent to some residents by Scott Riley, of the South Oxfordshire District Council’s (SODC) Planning Policy (Department?), wherein he states “We are consulting on Site F, which has been suggested by Thame Town Council, as a potential preferred site or alternatively the site we originally consulted on, Site D.” (Of course this is Local Council Officer “Humphrey” speak!).

What we don’t know is when the SODC received the suggestion from the Thame Town Council, who authorised it and when it was first raised in Council as a “potential preferred site”.

I don’t believe this issue was not being discussed before October 1st when the consultation period commenced either informally between Councillors, or within closed Council Committee meetings at both the SODC and the Thame Town Council. Bear in mind we also have four elected Councillors representing the Council Tax Payers on the South Oxfordshire District Council, three of whom are listed as being on the Planning Committee (2 as substitutes?). (Mike Dyer is not one of them and uninvolved with the SODC.)

Despite this representation, the news only broke to the unsuspecting Council Tax Payers when someone (Mrs N Mallows) from Stanton St John (12 miles away) brought the issue to light in the letters page of the Oxford Times dated October 7th. I, and my neighbour Mrs Jenson, only became aware of the consultation through an acquaintance on the following Saturday evening, nine days into the consultation period. We subsequently received letters addressed to “Dear Sir or Madam” from Scott Riley (SODC Planning Policy) on Monday 11th October. It seems the SODC’s Planners don’t know who we are but the Tree Preservation Department, or to put it more precisely, the Legal & Democratic Services (yeah, I’m not making it up), of SODC know exactly who we are when they send out their 24 page Tree Preservation Orders.

It is apparent that Mr Riley’s letter was hurriedly sent out in response to the news getting out and the first waves of indignation hitting his mailbox. Likewise, it seems the Town Council have cobbled together a series of events, posters and a public meeting. As others have said elsewhere, all too little and too late for them to regain credibility. Now we have Helen Stewart, the Thame Town Clerk, weighing in with demands to hold the Blot on Thame Action Group to account.

Well Ms Stewart, the boot should be on the other foot, you and your associated Town Councillors should be held to account for the early lack of action, information and the details mentioned in paragraph four of this letter. Even as late as last Tuesday afternoon, October 12th, no information was available in the Town Council Information Office and worse, the staff had no idea what was going on and I had to copy my letter from Mr Riley to them for their own information. I’m sorry, I’m not making it up!

Maybe the early release of the minutes of all the meetings held by the Town Council and committees for the last 12 months, will dispel the misinformation that Ms Stewart asserts.

Whilst it may be unfair for residents to aim their ire at the Thame Town Council over these matters, it is quite understandable. Of the eight Town Councillors representing the North Ward, not one of them, so far as I know, has been willing to visit either Ms Wiles, Mrs Jenson or their neighbours but, (surprise – surprise), someone has commissioned a private survey company to send round a nice young lady on Sunday October 17th , canvassing views on the matter. Well, they visited me in Old Union Way anyway. One wonders who is paying for this survey.

To make matters worse, the residents of Old Union Way, part of the Renaissance development sited within the grounds of the old Rycotewood College, have never been visited by any of the Town Councillors in the past two or more years where residents have been contributing significant sums of Council Tax to the local economy. That is, as far as I know, with the exception of Councillor Dyer, but he visited me on other business.

Your readers may be surprised by this, especially when you consider that, indirectly through the Berkeley Homes developers, a contribution of about