Town Council should ‘admit its errors’

Dear Editor,

When the Elms Petition group informed the public that Thame Town Council had employed, as Planning Consultant, Mr Collinge, a person with close links to Rectory Homes – his previous employer, major client and landlord, the group member who publicised that fact was threatened with legal action by Rectory Homes, despite the fact that his complaint was against the Council, not Rectory.

Now, the Royal Town Planning Institute, has considered evidence that Mr Collinge had been involved in discussions regarding building on Elms Field, contrary to his denials. We understand that The Institute’s Conduct and Disciplinary Committee has found Mr Collinge to be in breach of their code of professional conduct and that a warning is being issued to Mr Collinge, though he has the right to appeal against the Committee’s findings. Meanwhile, the town council’s website shows that he continues to be paid by them as Planning Adviser.

The public should also be made aware of the fact that the recently resigned Thame Town Clerk seems to have suffered a ‘memory loss’ when asked about a meeting with me. This meeting was organised at the request of Cllr Donald Butler, who wanted the Clerk to understand the petition group’s objections to development in Elms Field. She brought Mr Collinge to that meeting and introduced him as the Council’s Planning Consultant. Mr Collinge later claimed to the RTPI that the meeting was held to educate this writer on matters of the Localism Act, and the Clerk supported this erroneous statement. Her ‘memory loss’ is curious since Cllr Butler is bound to confirm the true purpose of the meeting and we understand that the RTPI has also judged that the meeting was held to discuss Elms Field, and nothing else.

The Council must therefore say what they are going to do about this situation. They should remember also that the petition group has already shown clear evidence that an important letter from English Heritage, which concluded that development on the Elms field would be “deeply damaging”, was withheld from the Councillors on, what the Elms Petitition group believes to have been, plainly false grounds. This meeting is where Councillors approved the Thame Neighbourhood Plan for referendum, and included in our opinion, other false information designed, we believe, to ‘guide’ them. The Council has not admitted what we believe to be clear falsehoods, nor said who was responsible.

The Council must also admit to the fact that, under the deed the Council signed in connection with the gift of land for Elms Park, it is contracted to protect The Elms, which is clearly shown on the Conveyance plan to include the field. Further, the same contract prevents the opening up of any access between Elms Park and Elms field, other than for the use of the owners of The Elms. Cllr. Dyer has denied this but remained silent since being shown the Conveyance. Are the rest of the Council equally stubborn, and if so why?

The Council needs to correct the situation and admit that the inclusion of this Conservation area pasture in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan as a development site was an error, committed in, what we feel to be, suspect circumstances. They already are obliged to re-allocate some of the original 45 houses to more suitable sites; they should take out and re-allocate the lot.

Readers can learn more by visiting elmspetition.org.uk, where they can also see the petition and sign it if they agree with what it says. They might like also to write to their Councillors reminding them that they should represent the opinions of the voters, who are clearly against this proposed development.
Peter Webb, Thames
on behalf of the elmspetition Group