Dear Editor, The following letter was sent to SODC yesterday, on behalf of the Elms Petition group and I would be grateful if you would publish it on the website to the wider community. (Editor’s edits in brackets for clarity)
“Dear Emily (Planning Officer), It is a mystery to us that SODC planning are recommending acceptance of Rectory’s latest scheme for the Elms (in Thame).
As stated several times by our group, such approval runs counter to SODC’s 2006 statement that Elms Field and Elms Park were, together, important open space. It is also contrary to the judgement of English Heritage that development would be deeply damaging. It ignores the opinion of your own Conservation Officer and concerns apparently expressed by your Forestry Officer.
Over 2500 residents have protested and stated that there should be no development on this pasture, which has remained in such use for over 200 years and which is an important lung for Thame. This is probably a record for objections, and you are choosing to ignore all these people. Why? There are people who do not care either way but no one, other than the developer and a couple of mysteriously motivated Councillors, have written in support – the latter ignoring their own Council’s decision not to support the Rectory plan.
You are aware that the Town Clerk and a couple of Councillors told voters that there was no point in voting “No”, because 750 houses were coming anyway. Clearly, The number of house was never the issue. Where to build them, was the issue and the document presented to constituents made no mention of where.
The plan, despite what Mr John Howell MP thinks, is a nonsense anyway. The 750 houses will be built in about five years, not twenty. Then what? No more building?
Also there is a current argument between people who want a Tesco out-of-town store (in Thame) and those who don’t. The plan says no such store, so why is that not the end of the matter?
You are aware also that some of the 45 houses allocated to Elms field have to be allocated to one of the designated sites. So why not turn down the 37 and re-allocate them all? There is plenty of room on the other sites, which were originally suggested and analysed for suitability by SODC. Elms Field was not one of those sites.
MP Howell has (the) political motivation to claim credit for local plans (Neighbourhood Plans). He will not admit to any shortcomings, including the two I have mentioned above, as his desire to climb the greasy pole prevents such admission.
Furthermore, although having failed to convince English Heritage that the view to the South was of lesser importance to the Elms, and thus justified building behind The Poplars and houses on Park Street, now, amazingly, the latest scheme builds also behind the Elms itself, thus destroying the settings of both listed buildings. Setting is supposed to be an important part of a listing, isn’t it?
And SODC propose accepting this? Why? Who is wielding undue influence? Is it a case of political interference? In this connection it should be noted that the 6′ Leylandi hedge which the previous owners planted to shield their tennis court from the Park, had been allowed to over-grow so as to destroy the view to the South.
You have ignored the findings of the Royal Town Planning Institute who admonished Thame’s Planning Consultant for his failure to ensure that his recommendations during the formation of the town plan did not run contrary to his obligations to his major client Rectory (Homes), from whose offices he ran his consultancy.
You have ignored the fact that the town plan (Thame Neighbourhood Plan) was sent by Councillors for referendum after they were blatantly mislead with false information during that Council meeting.
You have glossed over the fact, reported to you, that when Rectory presented their case to include Elms Field as a site for building, no member of the plan steering group was present. The Town Clerk alone heard the Rectory case and subsequently became a supporter. Questions arise but SODC is failing to ask them.
Please note also that Rectory Homes, in a meeting with the writer long ago, promised a 30m barrier behind both The Poplars and the Park Street Houses. This was to be planted with seven or eight well grown trees. I have a copy of the plan. Now, Rectory have reduced the barrier to about 20m, do not extend it behind the Park Street dwellings, and show no planting.”
NB The elms petition group seeks additional signatures to the petition against development on Elms Field. The petition and signing can be done by logging on to http://elmspetition.org.uk/
Regards
Peter Webb for the elmspetition group
EDITOR: Comments on the proposed development of land at The Elms from others, on both sides of the debate, can be read in the ‘Comments’ section at the end of every report on this subject – see LINK including several HERE
