Thame’s prospective Labour candidate speaks out on The Elms
On 19/11/2014 At 8:01 pm
Category : Missed a ThameNews story?, More News, Thame news
Responses : 17 Comments
WE want to liven things up on Thame.Net and SAM JUTHANI, the Labour Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Thame, is the first of our guest opinion piece contributors, a feature we would like to introduce as a regular part of Thame.Net. Here’s his contribution and do please feel free to comment: (PLEASE NOTE that opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Thame.Net)
Sam Juthani, Labour Candidate for the Henley Constituency
AROUND Thame, the Neighbourhood Plan continues to be a major issue- most recently, focused on Tesco’s plans for the edge of Thame. However, nothing has got Thame talking like the plan for the Elms. I have been surprised by the lack of generosity and understanding in John Howell’s public statements on the matter. The Elms is a contentious issue, but he has consistently sought to portray those who raised a fundamental objection to the plan as unconstructive and unhelpful to the process.
He is right to say that as candidates running for election next May, he and I must be circumspect in what we say about planning applications. He is also right to say that we need to work together to ensure the best outcome. However, in our respective roles, we also need to be championing the local community. I first realised how much of an issue the Elms was when I was canvassing Thame residents ahead of the European Parliament elections in May. Not only did almost every single resident mention it as a local issue, they were almost uniformly against the proposal to develop the site at all. Local residents’ voices should be heard.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the work of the Elms Petition Group. Whether you agree with them, or not, they are a shining example of extraordinary civic leadership. With no previous experience of campaigning or politics, they have built up a grassroots movement simply because they think that is the right thing to do. They deserve to be commended.
Sam Juthani
Labour Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Thame
Add your comment
Mr Webbs comments below – Simon and I rest our case.
Mr Vickers, in his comment, talks of accusations of malfeasance and corruption levelled at various persons. The fact is that no such accusations have been levelled by the elmspetition group. What we have done is question why Councillors were fed misleading information and why, on questionable grounds, was an important letter from English Heritage apparently withheld from Councillors at the same meeting, where they passed the Town Plan for referendum.
Remember that that letter was written shortly after a site meeting with Mr. Vickers’ (then) planning consultants. The letter dismissed the site assessment of those ex-consultants and concluded that development on Elms Field would be deeply damaging. The letter was not “late” as Councillors were told.
We have asked who were the persons, unnamed in the meeting’s minutes, who were responsible for misinforming Councillors. Not only has no person stepped forward, there has been no denial of our assertions. Voters will make what they like of that fact and they can remind themselves of the facts by checking on thamenews.net and on elmspetition.org.uk.
Also we have also questioned the involvement of the Council’s Planning Consultant. An independent planning consultant rang me to express the opinion that the involvement of the Council’s Planning Consultant was unethical, given his close link with Rectory. When we asked the Town Clerk to comment on this, she responded “That is a matter for Mr. Collinge”. Yes, she was that dismissive!
The matter is currently being looked at by the Royal Town Planning Institute’s Disciplinary Committee
Mr Vickers also zeros in on three of our members and ignores the fact that we speak for well over 2000 signatories. He also complains that the Thame Gazette publishes our letters. If the subject matter gets to be repetitive, that is because no proper answers are given.
The accusation of a “demand” for free land by myself is totally untrue. The fact is that I have long wanted to purchase a small plot at the back of my garden, before Dutch Eelm Disease a copse, which I hold on a long lease arranged with the Purser family. It was Mr. Vickers, who visited me and, finding that I was against development, said that my single objection against his plan would not count for much, but offered to give me the plot if I would agree not to object. I proposed that, any plan submitted should allow for a 30 metre division between the backs of my house and those on Park Street which overlook the field. Mr. Vickers agreed to this and that the area would be planted with trees. Not only is all this is writing, the matter was fully reported to the dozen or so persons who met to establish the elmspetition group. We agreed a tactical response but when Mr. Vickers later decided to take no action prior to receiving a planning consent, we decided to drop the matter and I added my signature to the petition.
People should recall that, at the start, it was put about that The Elms had been bought as a retirement home. This despite the fact that Surveyors were quickly on the scene, despite the fact that sheep did not need to know exact boundaries and tree locations. Scepticism was widespread and the story appears to have been dropped.
Remember also that Rectory threatened myself, and others, with legal action for having the temerity to resist the spoliation of what SODC has described as “important open Space”. Mr Vickers’ earlier lawyers are also on record demanding the names of all signatories on the petition (at that time 500) so that they could be threatened with legal action also. We refused to give this information but the 2000 odd names and addresses appear on the SODC planning website (go to planning and type in P14/S2176/FUL in the search box), so Rectory can now issue proceedings if they wish. Signatories can be sure of course that this, frankly silly, threat will go nowhere.
As we have said before, we are not questioning Rectory’s ability to produce a quality product. All we have said is – not on this site. The reasons are clearly laid out in the petition, which can be seen on our website. No sense to build on Elms Field and no need. Go build on sites C,D or F. Of course that would reduce the profit from what we estimate to be an extraordinary level in Elms Field, so we do understand Mr Vickers’ desire to press on.
What is mystifying is why there are Councillors supporting him and apparently prepared to renege on the contract they signed in 1948 to protect The Elms; and not to open a public access into the sheep pasture. Also to ignore the conflict within their own Town Plan between an agreement to build on land which was not one of the sites proposed and analysed for suitability by the Planning Authority and the same plan’s promise to protect existing open space.
The same Councillors have allowed rectory’s application to “improve” the park to go forward, despite the fact that all the “improvements” benefit Rectory and have not a jot of benefit to the owners and users of the park. The former being the people of Thame.
Instead of a row of mature trees allowing sight of the open space of a sheep pasture, users will be faced with a wall of houses within feet of the boundary. The re-locating of the paved play area, with the loss of one basketball court in the process, is surely proposed in order to move noise away from Rectory’s buyers. And the proposed mounds seem to be a cheap way to dispose of spoil from excavations on the housing site. Dump it in the adjacent park. Furthermore, the proposed footpaths are totally useless and do not shorten the distance for pedestrians going from the Broadwaters area in to the town center.
Mr Vickers is wrong to say that his scheme will be judged against the plan and established planning principles. The fact is that, being in the plan removes from SODC the normal right to consider a site’s suitability. As for “sustainability” (a much abused word) – read the petition.
This is why we are asking for the Plan to be revised. The Council already has a backup plan to relocate houses to sites to the sites analysed by SODC originally, if less that 45 are allowed on Elms Field. Zero is less than 45 so we say re-allocate the lot. And restore SODC’s proper power to assess all applications on
their merits.
Yes, my personal main concern is my outlook. Others have different main concerns. The point is that there are many reasons against this development and signatories of the petition are united in mutual support. Please read the petition and, if you sympathise, add the signatures of the over 18s in your family.
I am pleased to respond to Simon M’s Questions as follows:
It is a long established principle in National and Local planning policies that Town centre sites should always be considered first as they are the most sustainable, compared to edge of Town sites where everyone will need to get in a car to go to the Town centre. Existing publicly accessible open spaces would be most unlikely to be considered, but The Elms is privately owned land that no one can enjoy or access presently and very few people can see. This will change when the land is opened up and a new park and footpath links are provided
Planning permission has been granted for the seven unit development and is now built. In our experience the public are often concerned about the implications of additional traffic, but in reality there is no discernible difference once developments are completed. The highway department were consulted throughout the Neighbourhood Plan process and confirmed The Elms suitability for development. The site will have significantly less impact on the town centre traffic compared to the other allocated sites, due to its highly sustainable location.
English Heritage initially objected to the principle of development, but subsequently withdrew that objection once they fully considered the site and its history. Furthermore they reinforced their view at the Examination in Public.
In response to Mr Webbs statement below:
Mr Webb continues (to) disseminate his misinterpretation (of) the facts in an attempt to justify his argument and garner support. As noted above, English Heritage withdrew their objection to the Elms allocation and reaffirmed the removal of their objection at the Examination in Public. Mr Webb was in attendance at the Examination, yet he continues to deny the facts.
Mr Webb’s interpretation of the covenants in the transfer of Elms Park to the Council is wrong and has no substance whatsoever.
It is unfortunate that Mr Webb will not accept (that) all of his arguments have been considered throughout the Neighbourhood Plan process and beyond by senior planning officers, local councillors, district councillors and legal professionals, as well as an Independent Examiner. Nothing he has said, and continues to say is new or of substance.
Seems Cllr. Dyer is right on one point. The Plan promises to protect Elms park but does not extend that protection to Elms Field, despite the fact that the Planning Authority had designated the two, together, as important open space and ignoring the fact that English Heritage said that development on the field would be deeply damaging.
Another “mistake” in the plan, Councillor?
As for the Conveyance not referring to Elms Field, this seems somewhat at odds with the facts.
The Conveyance is clear but first, let the public understand that, following WW2, the government was faced with a need to build a large number of houses and the 1947 Town and country Planning Act gave them a right to compulsorily purchase land which had access to a road.
The land belonging to The Elms had such access by virtue of the Park Street entrance to what is now the Park. Leonard Purser gave the land for the park to Thame to avoid the danger of a council estate on the land behind his property. This is totally logical and his motivation can be attested to by witnesses with whom he discussed the matter.
Going to the conveyance, Cllr. Dyer should read clause 2. It states – “The Council hereby accepts the said property and so as to bind the property hereby conveyed into whosoever hands the same may come and so that this covenant may be for the benefit and protection of the premises known as The Elms Thame aforesaid which said property is coloured green on the said plan herby” etc etc.
THE PLAN CLEARLY SHOWS THE GREEN AREA TO BE ELMS FIELD PLUS THE HOUSE ITSELF AND ITS GARDEN.
Furthemore, in clause 4, referring to two small gates intended to allow the owners of The Elms sole rights of direct access to the park, states “ No other occupiers of premises abutting on to the Park are to be allowed private entrances to the Park” etc. etc.
It will be interesting to see whether this Councillor will withdraw his remarks.
As someone who has followed this story for some time and who has absolutely no vested interest. I believe the vast majority of residents who signed the petition would feel a lot happier if 3 simple questions were answered rather than this constant repeating of the same arguments,
Q1, Why when there was plenty of scope in the larger developments to absorb the 45 houses did the neighbourhood plan choose a green area in the heart of the town that was always going to be controversial.
Q2, after refusing permission previously for a development of 7 homes in a similar area due to traffic concerns do they now think it acceptable to build 45 homes using the very same roads?
Q3, Why were English Heritages neutral and important views totally ignored?
From the outside it seems bizarre that all this upset has been created unnecessarily and if the houses had been shared between the other sites the town would be a happier place.
Why was this site ever considered a good idea?
I look forward to not receiving sensible answers to these questions and expect the respective camps to continue their bickering.
Regardless of who said what, how it ended up in the ‘The Plan’, whether the plan is right or wrong, who’s in who’s pocket, who’s got vested interests, etc etc……
There does seem to be an overwhelming raft of objections, according to the SODC website,towards building on The Elms….. And this cannot be ignored.
Correct, as a member of the public, I cannot access The Elms, (neither can I access the majority of Thame Park) but this is not an argument for building houses on it?
This is an one area of Thame that does not need houses on it, plenty of space around the ring road!
Mr Vickers has rightly pointed out that the Elms Petition Group, and Peter Webb in particular, have repeatedly stated and re-stated ‘facts’ which they know very well to be untrue and I am compelled to point out three such transgressions in Mr Webb’s short comment below.
Firstly, there were no ‘delegated sites’. There were sites that SODC had evaluated and sites that they hadn’t, but there was no limitation or direction on what sites could be considered under the Neighbourhood Planning process.
Secondly, the Neighbourhood Plan did not promise to protect existing open space. Policy ESDQ1 (Neighbourhood Plan, page 43) stated that the open spaces identified in Fig 11.1 (Neighbourhood Plan, page 44) will be protected and retained. The identified sites include Elms Park but not Elms Field.
Thirdly, the Council is not breaking the contract that was signed when they accepted the gift of land for Elms Park in 1948. The conveyance makes no reference at all to the part of Elms Field retained by Mr Purser. In fact it does not even preclude building on Elms Park but specifically alludes to the possibility, and lays down conditions that would need to be met. Thame Town Council, however, have chosen to protect Elms Park from any development.
All of these facts, and the evidence to support them, have been made clear to Mr Webb on numerous occasions yet he continues to ignore them and persists in bending the truth to suit his own agenda. I wonder how many of those who have signed the Elms Group Petition have done so under the influence of such misinformation ?
“I would refer to Mr Juthani’s letter last week on the Elms. I am quite sure that if Mr Juthani were aware of the manner in which the EPG have conducted their campaign he would no longer describe them as demonstrating outstanding citizenship. It is surely not the Labour party’s official stance to condone misrepresentation and completely unjustified accusations of malfeasance and corruption levelled at elected officials ,their officers ,their advisors and our Company. This has caused great distress to many hard-working and honest people. Equally when he talks about the democratic process needing to be followed, were he to research the process that took place over some two years I am sure he would conclude that democracy was first and foremost in all of those processes and in line with the Localism act that the Labour Party endorse. Were he to read the report that Thame Town Council prepared he would be suitably illuminated on this matter.
I have also written to Mr Juthani and offered to show him the justification for my comments above that he might be better informed
On a separate matter I wonder for how many months more the Thame Gazette will continue to be the mouthpiece for Messrs Webb, Marianczak , Jeffries and Clanfield. How many times will they allow them to repeat the same old lines that have been disproven time and time again. Can I suggest that the Editor review all of the letters that they have submitted which must run to many hundreds of column inches and they will see that from many months, if not over a year ago nothing new has been said. Surely a community newspaper should not be a perpetual mouthpiece for a few people that are highly motivated with self-interest to keep repeating the same old lines?
The people of Thame should also be aware that some two years ago Mr Webb told us in writing that he would not object if we complied with a set of demands including the free transfer of land adjacent to his property. As we did not accede to his demands his objection can therefore not be one of principle but more of retribution.
Our current detailed application is still under discussion and once refined will be judged against the Neighbourhood Plan and soundly established planning principles. These will demonstrate we believe that the development will exceed all national standards and result in a development that will be of the highest quality. It will also be of the most sustainable nature in the centre of the thriving market Town of Thame. In addition it will provide a very accessible new area of parkland accessed directly from the Upper High street. Many objective people have pointed out that presently no one can see this land or enjoy it apart from of course a few people that currently overlook it – Mr Marianczak and Mr Webb included
Hopefully Sam Juthani will now speak out against the proposed out of town supermarket that Tesco want to build. Especially as it is completely against the town plan which wants to keep retail in the town centre
I just do not believe the 45 properties will so significantly increase the traffic compared to the hundreds of properties that already use these routes. That said making Nelson street one way and adapting the design to create a vehicle entrance / exit from the town centre would make sense.
Please resubmit your comment from a named person using a bona fide email address. Your email address will not be visible to the public
Maybe if some people dont know what the issues are they should take a look at some of the many objections lodged with the SODC. One of the main problems is that the planned access will create a dangerous increase in traffic along Nelson St and Southern Rd – both main pedestrian routes for local residents and children going to St Joseph’s and John Hampden Schools, and the town centre. The roads are single-track for the most part and other local developments have noted this problem with the council. Cars are already going up on the pavement daily, only just missing families. There is evidence of this. The construction traffic and the 90+ additional Elms resident cars that the development would bring, will cause more problems and I have no doubt injuries and worse. SODC are taking this problem seriously and the planning officer has come to see for herself. It’s not just about the actual site and buildings, it is whether this is a safe suitable area to develop as the access is far from ideal.
Couldn’t agree more Adam. The elms is privately owned. No one can use the land unless you are invited to visit the house. It is waste land at the moment so I really don’t understand what the issue is here. If it was the park they wanted to build on I would totally agree with the no building. So many people I speak to rant on about building on the park and I then have to explain to them it is a private house and property they want to build on and not the park!
Every time I read a letter or comment re: the Elms petition I feel like starting a separate petition to build on the land. Then I remember that Thame residents have already voted on where new housing should go including the Elms – the Thame Neighbourhood Plan! It was and still is a good plan
Nothing Sam Juthani said is anti-growth. Building the houses on the delegated site instead of on supposedly protected open space is simply good sense and responsible.
“Thame resident” has no name to show who it is that can’t see that building on Elms Field contravenes the Town Plan’s promise to protect existing open space. “resident” has also failed to pick up on the fact that the Council appear willing to break the contract they signed when they accepted the gift of land for the park in 1948.
Hopefully such “residents” are few in number.
Others can join the petition by visiting elmspetition.org.uk. They might like to help out friends and neighbours who are not connected to the internet. All that the petition needs is names and addresses of over-18 persons who are against the unnecessary devlopement on Elms field.
Hello Thame Resident,
I’m not anti-growth, anti-change or anti-investment at all. But I am pro-civilised debate, civic action and community engagement. I think that development can be done with the support of the whole community and not a divisive, fractured way.
I believe that investment for the future works best when everyone in the present supports it.
Kind regards,
Sam
Anti Growth.
Anti Change.
Anti Investment and future prosperity.
A great candidate for Thame!