10/11/10……Renaisance residents challenge Thame sites consultation
DEAR Editor, We, the Blot on the Landscape group, have written the following letter to Thame Town Council regarding the Thame Sites consultation:
Dear Councillors, Re: South Oxfordshire Core Strategy -Thame Sites Consultation: You will have seen a copy of our letter of 17 October 2010 to South Oxfordshire
District Council (SODC) citing our reasons against development at Site F, along with various criticisms of the way that the Consultation process has been handled by both Thame Town Council (TIC) and SODC.
To date the Councillors have failed to respond to the issues raised, Councillor Bretherton choosing instead to reply by way of a question. In response to his query, every resident in the development who was
approached signed our letter of 17 October 2010, and the only reason more signatures were not attached is because we were pressed for time to send the letter
as a result of the unreasonably short consultation process.
Given the location of the Renaissance development in relation to Site F, the opinion of the majority of
residents must be obvious. In addition to answering the questions in our previous letter, we invite any of the Councillors to deal with the following further points:
Site F vs Site D :-
1 It is widely acknowledged that all the pigs from Site F have recently been removed and the staff already made redundant, indicating that the owner is
anticipating Site F being chosen following the consultation process. Does he have any information that has not been made public?
2 On Friday 22 October the residents in our development had leaflets put through letterboxes which attempted to explain the flood risk at Site F. We
understand that this has been carried out by the owner of Site F’s planning consultant, Jeffrey Charles Emmett, who is based in Thame. The leaflet states
“Development on site F will, therefore, have no impact on flood levels on either the River Thame or Cuttle Brook”. He gives no detail of any formal assessment being carried out on site F, no evidence in support of his conclusion, and has carried out no assessment of Site D.
No details of Mr Emmett’s credentials, experience or
knowledge is given and none is available on the internet. The leaflet is therefore clearly biased and lacks any value or credibility. Do the Councillors believe that this leaflet demonstrates a well-balanced and thoroughly considered and researched comparison of the flooding risk on the two proposed sites?
3 We understand that the residents of Nelson Street and Windmill Road have been advised that access to Site D would be through those streets, when in fact
proposed access will be through Thame Park Road. Are the Councillors aware that this incorrect information has been given to these residents, presumably with the
intention of turning them against Site D, and if so, what has been done about this?
Fact Sheet: the Future of Thame
This leaflet appears to have been prepared by TTC but fails to deal with the following points, some of which have already been raised in our letter of 17 October 2010. We have numbered the facts listed for clarity;
4 Fact 1 “Thame Town Councils [sic] think site F is preferable”. Please explain why TTC prefers Site F, having previously promoted Site C with Site D as the
preferred alternative choice. Please also explain why it is acceptable for TTC to promote one site over another.
5 SOOC’s preference is for Site D. Please explain why this has not been mentioned in any of the leaflets produced by TTC or on their website.
6 Fact 3 “The final decision on the site and numbers would have been approved on 16 November without any further consultation had it not been for the Town
Council actively raising the public awareness of this matter.” Site D has been, and remains, SOOC’s preferred choice, and so any reconsideration of the sites must have been at the instigation of TTC. Please explain when TTC first approached SOOC about the possibility of a new consultation process relating to Site F, and how TIC “actively” raised public awareness of this matter, giving dates for each activity.
7 Fact 4 “The Town Council challenged both the need to work to this timeline and the approach … ” Please give details of how and when TIC “challenged” these
decisions and the outcomes.
8 Fact 5 “This is a very old plan … and the most recent outline plans”. Where are we able to view the “most recent outline plans”, and why are there apparently no plans for Site D? There are none available on either TTC or SOOC website and
review of the plans would seem a basic requirement when putting forward the advantages and disadvantages of any proposal.
9 Fact 7 “Thame Town Council’s Core Strategy Working Group consisted of representatives of schools, police and formally constituted resident groups from
around Thame.” Please give details of:
? when the Working Group was commissioned;
? each and every representative on the Working Group, and how they were chosen. It is notable that the properly constituted and registered company
“The Renaissance (Thame) Management Company Limited”, recognised as being the representative body for the whole of the former Rycotewood College grounds was not invited to be represented on the Working Group, despite the proximity of the development to Site F and the clear importance of the decision to all the residents;
? which category of “school, police and formally constituted resident groups from around Thame” applies to Mr Collinge, and how he came to be appointed as Chairman;
? whether any conflicts of interest were declared by Mr Collinge, who we understand lives and works in Thame.
10 Fact 7 (continued) “Formal reports from these meetings were presented to the Town Council and were available to the public … “We can find no reference to these either in TTC meeting minutes or generally. Please provide details of exactly where these documents can be viewed, and at which meetings they were discussed. We note Fact 8 “There are some people out there who may not even live in Thame who have a vested interest in inciting the public against option F.”
Given TIC’s admission of favouring Site F with no declared justification, they may wish to consider their own credibility before making criticisms about impartiality.
Leaflet “Location? Location? The Future of Thame is in Your Hands”
In relation to TTC’s Site Comparison Analysis set out in your leaflet “Location? Location? The Future of Thame is in Your Hands”, please can you explain;
11 your comment that “Sites A, S, C & E have been rejected by the District Council for various planning, highways and landscape reasons ..” There is no
explanation for this comment either on the TTC website or on SODC website. Please explain why these other sites have been rejected, particularly in light of the fact that Site C was TIC’s preferred site in October 2009.
12 why the site being “contained’ by the existing by-pass” is deemed a “positive”
in favour of Site F;
13 why “Ease of connection to existing (and extended) bus routes” is not also a “positive” point for Site D, given that by your own admission, a positive in favour of Site D is “proximity to town centre … “. In fact, more buses would appear to pass through Thame town centre (110, 111, 113, 124 and 280) than pass by the Oxford Road side of Site F (110, 111, 124 and 280).
14 how you plan to “develop Green Infrastructure” despite erecting a housing development and possibly a school;
15 why you have stated that the “Development of Grade 2 Agricultural Land” is a negative factor for Site 0D when our understanding is that the reduction in number of houses will mean that the majority of building will be on Grade 3 agricultural land, with very little building on Grade 2 agricultural land;
16 why you have not listed as a “negative” the significant traffic noise that will be encountered by any school or housing at Site F, in light of the proximity of the ring road;
17 similarly, why you have not listed as a “negative” the obvious traffic problems that will result from having a school on one site, when the majority of children will have to be driven to school. The current site of the Lower School means that parents can walk their children to school. The distance of Site F from the town centre makes the number of children who can walk there significantly less, worsening the traffic as
well as the risk of accidents.
Core Strategy Working Group
We understand that a Core Strategy Working Group meeting took place on Monday 11 October 2010. Please will you give details of:
18 the parties that were invited to attend; and
19 the parties that actually attended.
20 We believe that the attendees from the “formally constituted residents groups” who attended this meeting were Ms Elaine Kidd, Lea Park Residents Association, Keith Lomas, Chiltern Vale Residents Association and Richard Postance, Southern Thame Residents Association. If it is correct that these were the only attendees present on behalf of the residents of Thame, do the Councillors believe that these 3 people fairly and accurately represented the interests of a/l of the residents of Thame?
21 We believe that Ms Helena Fickling attended on behalf of Campaign for Preservation of Rural England and understand that she herself lives in Morton. Do
the Councillors believe that she represented an unbiased view from Campaign for Preservation of Rural England?
22 We understand that at that meeting, Mr Collinge gave details of a meeting that he had held with Mr Castle. Please let us know where we can view the minutes of the meeting with Mr Castle.
23 Please let us know where we can view the details of any meetings that Mr Collinge or any of the Core Strategy Working Group has held with the owners of
Sites A, 8, C, 0 and E.
24 We understand that further meetings were scheduled between Mr Castle, Lord Williams’ School and Thame County Council. Please let us know where we can
view the minutes of these meetings.
25 At this Core Strategy Working Group meeting Helen Stewart, Town Clerk, confirmed that she had arranged a meeting with the potential developers of Site F
about sustainable drainage measures. Please confirm:
? the identity of the potential developers of Site F. We note that this has not been cited in this week’s edition of Thame Gazette; and
? where we can view minutes of Ms Stewart’s meeting with the potential developers, and what was advised about “sustainable drainage measures”.
We understand that Ms Stewart has openly declared her preference for Site F and question whether this is appropriate.
TTC “vote”
It will be our submission that the “vote” carried out by TTC is seriously flawed and will provide a skewed view of Thame residents’ preferences. The ballot Straw Poll was held during weekday daylight hours, preventing any residents who work outside of Thame from voting. Further, the stall at the Farmer’s market on Tuesday was manned at times by Councillors who have a clear preference for, and were promoting, Site F. Please therefore explain;
26 how the outcome will influence the final decision as to Site D or F. Although TTC have encouraged this poll, they have failed to release information as to who will carry out the counting process or how the result will influence the final outcome;
27 whether the ballot papers will be compared against the electoral register. Without such checks, the poll is open to fraud since any name and postcode can be
given, presumably repeatedly;
28 whether you believe that it is appropriate that Councillors were promoting Site F at the polling stand. Given that TCC were previously in favour of Sites C and D, it would be understandable if Thame residents lacked confidence in any recommendation that the Councillors are now making.
Conclusion
We look forward to receiving replies from any of the Councillors who are prepared to respond to our questions, either by way of email or at the meeting on Monday evening. We trust that there will be no objection to the meeting being recorded for
future reference.
By way of update, we are seeking legal advice in relation to judicial review of a decision in favour of site F, and are sending a copy of this letter to the planning department at South Oxfordshire District Council for their information, as well as to
all the parties listed at the end of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Mr and Mrs Berger
43 Old Union Way
Mr and Mrs Cooper
33 Old Union Way
Mr and Mrs Hassan
1 College Close
Mr and Mrs Jenson
37 Old Union Way
Mrs Markcrow
27 Old Union Way
Mr and Mrs Miller
35 Old Union Way
Mr and Mrs Miller
31 Old Union Way
Mr .and Mrs PoweJl
’39 Old Union Way
Or Rajappan and Or
Kerrnanl
41 Old Union Way
Mrs Elsie Sims
39 Old Union Way
Mr and Mrs Wilson
LtCollege Close
C.c Adam Buckland, Councillor and Mayor – adambuck1@aoLcom
Jake Collinge – jake@jcpc.org.uk
Jim Howell MP – howelljm@parliament.uk
Nick Carter, Councillor – nick.carter@oxfordshire.gov.uk
Angie Paterson, Cabinet Member – angie.paterson@southoxon.gov.uk
Anne Midwinter, Councillor – ann.midwinter@southoxon.gov.uk
Clifford Baker, Councillor – cliff.d.baker@hotmail.co.uk
Oavid Bretherton, Councillor – dw.bretherton@btinernet.com
Jeanette Matelot Green, Councillor – jm@telot.wanadoo.co.uk
Owen Oavies, Councillor – davies2399@yahoo.co.uk
Oavid laver, Councillor – dandnlaver@talktalk.net
Michael Dyer, Councillor – mike@apxeurop.demon.co.uk
Michael Welply, Councillor and Chairman, South Oxfordshire County Council
apts93@dsl.pipex.com
Oavid Oodds, Councillor – david.dodds@southoxon.gov.uk
Nicola Oixon, Councillor – dixonandco@googlemail.com
Nigel Champken-Woods, Councillor – ngcw@btinternet.com
Robert Parker, Councillor – rob@stoneworld.co.uk
Felix Bloomfield, Vice-Chairman, South Oxfordshire County Councilfelixbloomfield@
hotmail.com
Adrian Ouffield, Head of Planning Services
adrian.duffield@southoxon.gov.uk
Oavid Buckle, Chief Executive, South Oxfordshire County Council –
david.buckle@southoxon.gov.uk
Ann Oucker, leader of the Council, South Oxfordshire County Council –
ann.ducker@southoxon.gov.uk
