The Elms: Open reply to Peter Webb from Mike Dyer

Mr Webb,
Please excuse me for responding by annotating your letter but, as legal arguments are involved, this seemed the simplest way to ensure clarity – my response(s) in red below.

Dear Cllr Dyer, During the council meeting at the town hall last night, you stated that you had not been able to find anything in the conveyance of Elms Park that talked about protecting The Elms.

A couple of weeks ago, you said that ‘the Elms’ did not include Elms Field. We showed you that the conveyance plan clearly shows that it does, but you have not acknowledged your error. No error. The plan in the Conveyance identifies two areas of the land. The area outlined in pink and yellow is what we know as Elms Park, and the area outlined in green encloses Elms House and Elms Field. The Conveyance specifically mentions the area in yellow as being 6.736 acres of land (or thereabouts), which agrees with the Council’s asset register which shows the area of Elms Park as 27154 m2 = 6.7 acres.

Now, if you will look again at the document, which we must remind you, is signed by the council as a deed, i.e. as a contract, you will see in paragraph 2, – “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 hereby covenants with the donor that the council and its successors in title will at all times observe and perform the conditions restrictions and stipulations set out in the first schedule hereto” This is confirming that the Council and any successor owner will continue to do all that is in the First Schedule, for the benefit and protection of The Elms, regardless of future ownership, i.e it relates purely to actions in what we know as Elms Park.

Further, if you look at para 4 in the first schedule you will see that the council is obliged to have two small gates which are for the sole use of the owners of The Elms. So the proposed public open access in the Rectory plan and the park ‘improvements’ application, are illegal. This is not correct and you have only selected part of the clause. What it actually says is that ‘The donor and his widow and any of his descendants so long as he she or they are the occupiers of the Elms are to have the right of way to the park through two small gates…’ This condition therefore ceased to apply when the Purser family sold the property in 2010.

Also, para 16 forbids the cutting of trees. Paragraph 16 is part of the First Schedule and therefore refers to trees within Elms Park, not those in Elms Field.

In essence, the Purser family made a gift of land to the Council for use as a public park, including conditions which were designed to ensure that use of the park did not impinge on their enjoyment of the land that they retained.

We would ask you to publicly acknowledge the illegality of Thame Council approving any plan to build on Elms Field. I decline your invitation and remain confident of the validity of including Elms Field as a site allocation within the Thame Neighbourhood Plan.
Mike Dyer.