‘Accusations of malfeasance and corruption’ challenged

DEAR Editor, 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.

Peter Webb
Thame