20/02/13…..Editor’s response to the Town Clerk’s letter

Dear Helen, As you have decided to publicly challenge my report of part of yesterday’s public Examination, I will reiterate my private response to you.

As is my duty and habit, I took very careful notes of yesterday’s proceedings and what Ms Rowlands actually said was that (and I quote straight from my notes) “A need for a 200+ community facility HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED …….. so therefore to stipulate that in the policy would not be helpful.”

Carefully reading the plan again (see my quotes in my email to you and the links in yesterday’s report), a need most certainly HAS been identified through the consultation – which Ms Rowlands carried out – and has emerged as a ‘Core Objective’ and a policy. Hence my considerable surprise at hearing her response to the Examiner’s questioning.

Therefore I maintain, that my report WAS accurate and that Ms Rowlands, and now yourself, saying that a 200+ person community facility should NOT be stipulated in the plan is illogical because it IS ALREADY in the plan for everyone to read!

I would add that others at the meeting, including one of our town councillors, also came away with the same feeling of amazement that the large community centre that so many, including the Cattlemarket Action Group (Cmag) had very clearly asked for, appeared not now to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.

I would therefore ask you – Is a 200+ community centre for Thame included in Neighbourhood plan or not? If it is not, will the wording be amended?

Sonja Francis
Editor