03/04/13..Town council taken to task over ‘dangerous’ park access
DEAR Editor, I am writing in response to your article entitled ?Park gates safety ?not an issue? says Council? of 25/03/2013. I am surprised and concerned by the manner in which Thame Town Council (TTC) is conducting itself over this matter. The un-gated access from Elms Park onto Park Street is clearly dangerous, as the 23 individual objections (many of which give witness accounts of near misses) to TTC?s latest retrospective planning application concur; I am in no doubt that there would have been many more objections if more locals were aware of the application and its history. I cannot understand TTC?S motive for not having implemented the fitting of a gate which they originally applied and obtained planning permission to install. To now say that the gate is not required and that there is ?not an issue? seems to demonstrate a lack of concern and ability to listen to the general public.
Commenting in The Thame Gazette (February 23rd 2013 ) Town Clerk Helen Stewart said that ?parents have a duty of care to look after their children?; this is true and it is correct that there is an unenforced byelaw stating that dogs must be kept on leads in Elms Park. Likewise TTC have a duty of care to make the access as safe as is practically possible and parents should be able to allow children to play freely. In the same article Helen Stewart said ?There was never any intention by the council to install a pedestrian gate because it would cause more trouble than it?s worth.? Is that appropriate motive for endangering the public and ignoring breaching planning permission?
The OCC Highways Liaison officer considers the situation not dangerous because there has not been a serious accident at this point in the last 6 years. I think this is a questionable criterion for assessing pedestrian safety; had the situation always been as it is now then maybe this would be a worthwhile box ticking exercise, but in this case a pedestrian barrier was removed under the pretence of replacing it with a safety gate and the access was then left unprotected within the last 2 years.
TTC stated in the design and access statement of their 2008 planning application (P08/E0772) ?…with the installation of a self-closing gate we can ensure that cyclists, children and animals are prevented from directly, and dangerously, accessing the highway from the park.???We feel that this proposal would be better suited (functionally and aesthetically) to the job that the railings are doing.? What could have changed so much since that time that TTC have completely changed their minds?!
In your article of 25/03/2013 you quote Cllr Mike Dyer as saying ?that he had been approached by a resident living opposite the park and that he had written back to him inviting him to come and talk, but that the resident had never done so?. I believe that Cllr Dyer is referring to me. I did indeed receive a letter from him and from Helen Stewart (after being ignored and rebuffed for over a year) and both stated that there was not a safety issue and that Oxfordshire Playing Fields Association (OPFA) and The Police were happy with the situation (I believe that they may have been quoting these organisations out of context and that they had commented on the original application plans which included a self-closing gate). OPFA have now said that they have not previously commented on the current situation and that they would like to see a self-closing gate in place. Because Cllr Dyer at that time stated that TTC had no intention to (and never had intention to) install a self-closing gate, TTC appeared to be in breach of their original planning permission and frankly, while it was courteous of Cllr Dyer to invite me to do so, I saw little benefit in me meeting with TTC when their minds were clearly set (as borne out by the current official comments) and the matter would have to be presented to the Public for consideration of retrospective planning permission.
I did, however, approach the Deputy Mayor, Cllr Lambert, during the current application?s consultation period to enquire if he was aware of the retrospective application and the contradictions between it and the 2008 approved application; he informed me he was not and I provided him with the relevant documents. Cllr Lambert subsequently told me that he had raised the matter at a TTC meeting but that there was a consensus of opinion that no further action was required.
There is an organisation called The Friends of Elms Park which has raised considerable funds by organising an annual music festival. While this could be a valuable body representing the users of Elms Park I fear that it is, de facto, a quango Chaired by Mayor Champken-Woods and set up as a charity to enable access to grant monies not permissible to Local Councils.
If the motive for not installing the gate as per the originally granted permission is lack of funds, then it might be useful to see the original quotes for the installation of the self-closing pedestrian gate (there should be some, as a condition of the 2008 planning permission was that works should not be started until a contract for the full proposed works had been agreed). Given the strength of public concern, it may be that funds could be raised via The Friends of Elms Park in a similar way to the praiseworthy achievements in raising funds for the Thame Youth Memorial; it would be tragic were another name added to that Memorial should a road traffic accident statistic for the Elms Park entrance be entered on the OCC Highways Liaison Officer?s tick sheet.
TTC say that it is a mystery to them how a gate appeared in their original application; an application which was commissioned by them, entitled (an application)? ?to install a public access gate to the side of vehicle access gate at entrance to Elms Park?, signed by Town Clerk Helen Stewart then recommended for approval at their own planning committee meeting on 22 July 2008. This surely raises some serious questions of competence or integrity or both.
Such questions are perhaps particularly pertinent at this time when TTC are asking us to vote ?yes? for Thame in the Referendum of 2nd May. I cannot walk away from what is blatantly a dangerous safety issue where I have witnessed several incidents of children running out of the un-gated access up to the road edge. I am urged by TTC propaganda that the Thame Neighbourhood Plan is the peoples? way of having a say in how new housing and infrastructure will be implemented and that TTC considers the views of the people of Thame; this is not my experience with this issue of public safety and, based on this experience, I do not feel comfortable entrusting other important decisions to them. I am sure that the TTC Officers and Councillors have a valuable role in assisting the qualified planners at District Council and that the Draft Town Plan is a useful document, but I feel that any further implementation should be by accountable professionals.
As a further justification for the 2008 application to change the gate arrangement onto Park Street, the design and access statement cited that ?work with the NAG had highlighted: the need for better entrances and exits, primarily to help the police manage bad behaviour in the park and the ease of escape that exists at the moment.”. This made sense and the fencing of the boundary on the south-west boundary of the park seems to have helped.
However, I note that there are proposals in the Neighbourhood Plan recommending development of the historic parkland site belonging to The Elms House. This is a valuable remnant of unimproved grassland with significant mature trees and is therefore an important and sensitive wildlife resource which I had expected to be preserved in its current state as an asset to Thame. The proposals to open pedestrian access into it from Elms Park will create a new ?escape route (s)? for miscreants and a problem area for policing. TTC seem to be contradicting advice that they have previously cited as important.
I would like to thank the Editor for what appears to be very accurate reporting of TTC meeting proceedings. I was not aware that The Elms Park self-closing gate was to be discussed at TTC?S Culture, Leisure and Recreation Committee meeting of March 19th, as it was not on the published agenda, and, as no minutes have yet been published, I would be none the wiser were it not for your reporting.
Richard Jeffries
Park Street
Thame
