Updated 23.30 hrs: Elms digger turned away

UPDATE: In response to a request for its views on the report below, the following statement has been received from Rectory Homes: ““Now that a planning application has been submitted for land at The Elms, we are required to undertake an archaeological survey of the site. A vehicle attempted to gain access on Monday, September 8, using an established right of way, to carry out this work. Unfortunately access was refused, despite repeated polite requests. We have now had little choice but to instruct our solicitor to ensure that we can have unhindered access in future.”

ORIGINAL REPORT:  AS a proposed housing development on land at The Elms in Thame, continues to be the subject of much controversy in the town, a neighbouring landowner has refused permission for a large earth-moving vehicle to gain access, via his drive, to the site.

A JCB digger operating at The Elms, last year (Image copyright of Richard Jeffries

The equipment, described as a 22 tonne, New Holland excavator, was apparently intended to be part of an archaeological investigation commissioned by the site’s owners, Rectory Homes, as requested by the local planning authorithy.

Mr Peter Webb, whose property adjoins the site, today explained his actions: “An employee of Rectory Homes knocked on my door on Monday (08/09) and told me he wanted to take a low-loader carrying an excavator into the field via my drive and needed me to unlock my main gate. The equipment was parked on a double yellow line and obstructing the pavement outside my gate.

“Rectory Homes has a right of way into the field, dating back to the time when the field had a dividing fence down the middle. The Right of Way had been disused for some 15 years due to the fact that tenant sheep farmers preferred to use the larger entry through The Elms. Rectory Homes has recently closed off its own entry, according to the employee, as part of the work they are doing on the Elms Barn conversion. As a result, in accordance with the RoW, my drive was used by the contractor who did the haymaking this year. No problem. The hasp and staple, and the lock on the gate to the field was supplied by Rectory when they bought the property but was installed for them by me. No evidence of not complying to the RoW here I think.

“However, on Monday I questioned why Rectory Homes wanted to take a large excavator into the field because they surely could not do any work until they had planning approval. I was not given any reason and the demand for access was repeated. I asked the excavator rental people whether they could guarantee that trees would not be damaged. They couldn’t do so. I then asked what the width of the low-loader was. They said ’12 feet’. I then said that in that case entry was impossible and they drove away.”

The driveway in Upper High Street, Thame, along which the mechanical digger was intended to pass

Mr Webb alleges that while these discussions were on-going, a Rectory Homes employee spoke to his (the employee’s) boss, Simon Vickers, who, alleged Mr Webb: “…. told him to tell me that I would regret my refusal. This attempt to intimidate me has been reported to the Police.”

Mr Webb continued: “It should have been obvious to Rectory Homes that a 12ft wide low-loader will not go through a gate which is substantially narrower.” Mr Webb said that shortly after the incident, he received what he described as, ‘a threatening letter’ from a Rectory Homes lawyer.

“The lawyer is being told to go ahead with a court action if they (Rectory Homes) wish, but to be prepared to explain how they proposed to get the machinery through two insufficiently wide gates. They had, and still have, the option of bringing in a smaller machine, preferably a wheeled unit, through my gate, or of re-opening their own field access if a large machine is imperitive,” Mr Webb added.

Mr Webb confirmed that an SODC Planning Officer had told him that no work on the site would not normally be permitted before Planning Permission had been granted, but that in this case, Rectory Homes had been asked by SODC to dig some trenches as part of a required archeological survey.

“That information should have been communicated to me by Rectory Homes,” concluded Mr Webb. “But it would not have assisted the impossible task of entry.”

EDITOR: An email request to Rectory Homes for comment on this incident is awaited and will be published as soon as possible.