Thame.net

Author: Sonja Francis

  • 11/11/10…Thame residents state their views to council scrutineers

    THAME interest groups with views on the proposed draft plan for housing development in the town to 2027, have helped the Core Strategy over the first hurdle of its adoption.

    The Draft Core Stategy went before South Oxfordshire’s Scrutiny committee on Tuesday (November 9), before it is recommended to the Cabinet on November 16, and then to full council.

    So many speakers from the four towns in the district wanted to be heard, that they were limited to three minutes each and the huge numbers in the public gallery spilled into an adjoining room where they were able to view the proceedings as a Web cast.

    On the Core Strategy itself, Mr Matthew Clifton from Didcot, reflected the concern of other speakers and some councillors when he queried whether the numbers of new homes proposed were now out of date because of the economic downturn. He called for the CS to be dropped in favour of an interim planning policy until the Localism Bill comes in at the end of 2011, as other areas like Aylesbury Vale have done, a point supported by Cllr Sue Cooper.

    Miles Thompson, SODC’s Planning Policy Manager said that Aylesbury was in different position because it has enough sites already identified for the next five years, whereas South Oxfordshire does not.

    Speaking on behalf of Thame Town Council, Cllr Mike Dyer described the draft Core Strategy as: ?…seriously flawed and unfit for purpose,? and as a ?box-ticking exercise.”

    He added: “Aside from polarised opinions on the choice of site, we (the town council) have the full support of the community in challenging the methodology, the numbers, the one site option, and even the very evidence on which the strategy is based. No part of these proposals even pretend to identify the specific development needs of Thame.”

    Cllr Dyer remarked that no reference in the Core Strategy document included any reference to what the Town Council consider one of the most significant factors, which is the potential to unite Lord Williams?s School on a single campus.

    “This vision requires that part of site F be set aside and protected from the early phases of development to allow time for a full study into this option, but no such provision is allowed for.”

    Robin Storey, representing the Moreton Residents, asked why no consideration had been given to dispersing the housing around the villages first. He was however content that site F had been chosen over site D (on land to the south of Town between Thame and Moreton)which he said, would have destroyed amenity landscape.

    He told councillors that he had been a member of a Core Strategy Working Group, put together by Thame Town Council, which consisted of 15 different amentity and residents’ groups.

    Angela Wilson, representing the Lea Park Residents’ group (also part of the Core Strategy Working Group), said that she was happy that a site that will limit further expansion had been chosen but that the all the local authorities needed to work together to come up with a plan that would enhance the area, particularly ensuring that the houses were not too high.

    Oxford Road resident, Judi Robinson, said that she appreciated that Thame needed to expand but that she would like to make the following points:

    1. That inadequate consideration has been given to the value of site F, in relation to the long-term development of the community, specifically if lower Lord Williams’s school potentially moved up, the re-siting of the fire station, and, what she called: “muted discussions about a health centre and a hotel.

    “If site F is released now,” she said, “it would be like selling the family silver. That site should be kept in abeyance for the future of the children of Thame, and development on site D be allowed to go ahead.”

    2. “Considering the potential growth of the town in the next 10 years,” she continued, “and bearing in mind that the current facilities at the Thame Leisure Centre are woefully inadequate, we will then require more leisure facilities. So it makes sense to link them in with the current facilities then, keeping it all in one place. We will also then require more parking for cars and more space for buses to support the increased leisure facilities and pupils.

    “It would be stupid to develop that site now when there is an alternative,” she concluded.

    The other speaker from Thame was Jeffery Emmett, Agent for the landowner of site F, Charles Castle. His speech and the full representations made by all the other speakers, can be viewed on the Web cast of the meeting available on South Oxfordshire District Council’s website. WebCast

    Other notable contributions:

    Cllr Anne Purse asked for the proposal to build on the edge of Wheatley on what is Greeen Belt land, to be dropped. It was pointed out that the Core Strategy makes provision for a Green belt review at the Site Allocations stage of its progress.

    The meeting heard that 520 affordable homes are needed across the district per year! Having small numbers of new homes would not help here because the district only gets affordable homes built on the back of market value homes. The current policy is that developers must provide 40% affordable homes on any development over three homes.

  • CPRE campaign up-date – Contributued

    AT the Public Inquiry into Chiltern Railway?s plans for a new station at Water Eaton, currently underway, CPRE Oxfordshire will be voicing its concerns about the impact of the plan on the ?Kidlington Gap? and the potential loss of a critical piece of Green Belt countryside, part of the setting of Oxford.

    The ?slight site redesign? for the proposed wind turbine at Horspath by Partnerships for Renewables (PfR), which was signed off by Oxford City Council this month, is of serious concern to the CPRE; we believe it actually represents a very major shift in the location of the 425 feet high (130 metres) wind turbine – actually some 300-500 metres closer to the village of Horspath.

    On 19 October the Oxfordshire County Council?s cabinet decided that the County Council?s preferred approach for sand and gravel working in the short to medium term was to concentrate working in existing areas of working, at Lower Windrush Valley, Eynsham/Cassington/Yarnton, Radley, Sutton Courtenay and Caversham.

    South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) is seeking to legitimise its advertising on roundabouts which it unlawfully erected five years ago, and which CPRE Oxfordshire strongly contested, through a series of applications. We will be objecting to the applications and we have urged parish councils affected to also object.

    In advance of the announcement of the new Localism Bill, CPRE National Office has published its own national Planning Charter, to highlight key areas Ministers will need to address if this legislation is to succeed in protecting the countryside, and regenerating our cities, towns and villages.

    For more information about these and other issues see:

    http://www.cpreoxon.org.uk/

  • November Match Reports – Thame Netball Club

    MATCH 03/11/10 Tornadoes V Kites, 18 ? 17 to the Tornadoes, Thame.

    TORNADOES fought a closely contested match with Kites on Wednesday, November 3, to secure their fourth win of the season. Although Kites scored the opening goal, Tornadoes soon dominated the play, making the most of the scoring opportunities. Excellent shooting by the Kites GS brought the score level at the end of the first quarter.

    Tornadoes once again took control of the second quarter with good team play, forcing errors from Kites pushing their lead to 11 ? 8. Tornadoes started the fourth quarter determined to pull away. Both teams demonstrated excellent play but it was Tornadoes who just had the edge winning 18 -17. Player of the match was awarded Lynn Palmer who played an excellent game at WD.

    Team: Hannah White (captain), Sheena Maguire, Lynn Palmer, Lisa Sydenham, Emma Young and Lauren Fairbrother.
    Hurricanes V Hares
    25 ? 23

    THE Thame Hurricanes faced tough opposition this week too, against Hares. Although the Hurricanes trailed in the first half, their strong defence kept the goal difference to a minimum. Hurricanes gradually began to fight back with good interceptions from their wings. The score remained tight throughout, with both teams battling to the last minutes. Fantastic shooting and strong centre court play enabled Hurricanes to pull ahead and win 25 ? 23.

    Team: Vanessa Hake, Carol Storey, Becky Froud, Penny Caudle, Mel Rose, Sue Farrow and Lyn Hopwood.

    Thame Netball Club has been funded by The Oxfordshire Community Foundation Grassroots Grants Project for the 2010/11 season.

  • 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

  • 10/11/10….Renaissance residents challenge Thame sites consultation

    THAME RESIDENTS who live on the Renaissance Development in Oxford Road, Thame, are unhappy with Thame Town Council’s consultation on the preferred site for future housing development in the town.

    They have written to Thame Town Council, SODC’s Scrutiny Committee and the district council’s Planning department.

    Link here

  • 10/11/10…Scrutiny says ‘yes’ to site F

    THE local planning authority has approved the Draft Core Strategy for South Oxfordshire, including its planning officers’ recommendation that site F, on the pig farm in Oxford Road, Thame, is the best place for a major future housing development.

    Town Cllr Mike Dyer spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council who supported Site F, and Judi Robinson, who lives in Oxford Road, spoke against site F.

    Jeffrey Emmett, of David Hignell, spoke on behalf of the owner of Site F, Charles Castle.

    Full report on ThameNews.Net tomorrow.

    NB The Core Strategy will go before the full Cabinet of South Oxfordshire District Council on November 16.

  • 09/11/10….Are you being chased for someone else’s debt? Advice from Thame CAB

    SOMETIMES when people move house, they find themselves receiving letters pursuing debt from the house?s previous occupants. The first thing to remember is that it is not your debt and you are not responsible for it.

    What you can do:
    ? Ignore them, they can’t do anything.
    ? Contact the company pursuing the debts in
    writing and explain that the person they are
    chasing for payment no longer lives at this
    address and has no connection with you.
    ? Point out in the letter that harassment is a
    criminal offence and that you will take
    further action if it does not stop.
    ? If the debt is in the previous occupant’s name
    and they have left a forwarding address you
    could pass this information on, (it’s their
    debt not yours!) but you’re not under any duty
    to do so.
    ? Use a call-barring service or change your
    phone number and go ex-directory.
    ? Keep a record of any harassment, including
    dates, times and content of any telephone
    calls, and keep copies of all correspondence.
    Report the matter to the police if debt
    collectors threaten or intimidate you
    ? Write a formal letter of complaint to the debt
    collector and original creditor, if you know
    who it is
    ? If this still doesn?t work, take your
    complaint further to the trade body they
    belong to (the Finance and Leasing
    Association; Credit Services Association or
    the Consumer Credit Trade Association all have
    Codes of Practice for their members).
    ? Speak to trading standards – they may have
    other complaints about same company – and
    inform the Office of Fair Trading, which
    regulates debt collection
    ? Don’t suffer in silence. Contact your nearest
    Citizens Advice Bureau – for contact details go to www.adviceguide.org.uk An adviser can intervene on your behalf with the company and help you to complain.

  • 09/1/10….Getting the best deal from your Letting Agent – advice from Thame CAB

    ARE you renting your home? Make sure your letting agent is treating you fairly by following our top tips!

    ? Shop around. Ask for details of the services each agent provides and what they charge for. Not all agents make additional charges, and the amounts they do charge can vary.
    ? It is a criminal offence for a letting agency to charge you just to register with them. You shouldn’t have to pay any fees until the agency has found accommodation for you. If you think that an agency is acting illegally, contact your local council’s trading standards officer or tenancy relations officer.
    ? Check whether the agent is a member of a trade body such as ARLA, NAEA, RICS or NALS, which require members to have client money protection arrangements. This should prevent you losing money if the agent goes out of business. They also require members to have a complaints procedure.
    ? Check whether the agent has a procedure in place to deal with complaints including access to independent redress, for example, an ombudsman scheme.
    ? If you are charged a tenancy deposit, ask the agent for the details of the tenancy deposit protection scheme they use. Agents and landlords are required by law to protect deposits for assured shorthold tenancies in a Government approved scheme.
    ? Ask the agent whether the landlord has the lender’s permission to rent out the property. If not, you could be evicted with minimal notice if your landlord gets into arrears with their mortgage and the property is repossessed.
    ? Get free, confidential, independent advice from your local Citizens Advice Bureau (see www.adviceguide.org.uk or your local phone book for contact details) or local housing aid centre.

  • 09/11/10….Tuesday Thame news round-up

    SOME members of Thame Town Council are unhappy about the full-size plastic cows that have recently been seen on the pavement outside Newitts’ butchers shop and The Thatch restaurant in the High Street.

    The council is to undergo a review of the use of A boards and other so-called ‘obstructions’ on the pavements around the town.

    At a recent meeting of the council’s Planning committee, one councillor described the cows as “a bit of nightmare,” adding that they should “be sent to a field.”

    Cllr Beatrice Dobie though said: “A lot of people are rather fond of them.”

    SPEED CAMERAS

    SOUTH Oxfordshire District Council is close to doing a deal with Thames Valley Police is securing funding toward the running of the district’s speed cameras which were turned off two months ago. The cameras are expected to be turned on again next April, 2011.

    VISIT ‘MIDSOMER’

    PEOPLE visiting South Oxfordshire are now able to follow in the famous footsteps of Detective Chief Inspector Tom Barnaby following the launch of a new website highlighting the district?s starring role in TV?s Midsomer Murders.

    South Oxfordshire District Council has launched www.visitmidsomer.com to highlight the locations in the district, including around Thame, where Midsomer Murders is filmed, to help attract more visitors to the area.

    An interactive map shows key Midsomer locations and a blog highlights themes and topical news items connected with the district?s towns and villages.

    WHAT A SHAMBLES!

    THE piece of land between Buttermarket and Cornmarket, Thame, currently used as a public throughway and for parking by the surrounding shops, has been described as: “Looking seedier by the day!” by a Thame Town Councillor.

    Despite years of investigations, the council says that it has been unable to establish who the owner of the land it is, and therefore intends to investigate the costs of applying for ‘Voluntary registration’ of the land to itself so that the area can be tidied up, and to look into any other financial implications of taking over responsibility of the Shambles.

    TOWN COUNCIL ADVICED TO ‘PLAY SAFE’ WITH INVESTMENTS

    THE Investment Management company that looks after Thame Town Council’s investments, has told the council that the best way to invest money in the current financial climate is: “..to stick to companies that make the things you find in your bathroom or your kitchen; the staples of our lives!”

    “Something horrible is going to happen in Europe,” warned Rupert Baron of Rathbone Investment Management, “Greece, Portugal and Spain are very likely to go ‘pop’ – its just a question of where and when,” he added.

    Currently the council’s investment port folio includes gold, hedge funds, BP, Blue Crest and index linked guilts and its value stands at

  • 09/11/10…..Britain’s Got Talent voice coach offer help to Thame’s Got Talent wannabe singers

    BRITAIN’S Got Talent vocal coach, Niall Gelder-Stones, is putting his weight behind this year?s Thame?s Got Talent event, by offering to voice train and coach entrants prior to taking the stage on the big day.

    Gelder-Stones, who supports the ITV prime time show and has a number of leading roles in the West End under his belt, is offering special workshops and voice training for wannabe singers, to help improve their vocal performances.

    Interest in the coaching is expected to be extremely high so entrants are encouraged to book their acts in fast as spaces will be limited and offered on a first come, first served basis.

    Commenting on the event, Chief Executive of the Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity, Pat Dodge said: ?This is a wonderful opportunity for entrants to get some expert help from a real professional who has been in the business for a while. We are thrilled to have Niall on board.?

    Thame?s Got Talent 2010 will take place on Sunday, November 21, at The Spread Eagle Hotel, Cornmarket, Thame, OX9 2BW. Spaces are running out to take part, so if you sing, play an instrument, dance, mime, juggle, tell jokes, read poetry, perform
    magic, or do anything that will WOW an audience, book your act in now! Troupes and groups are as welcome as solo performers.

    To book your act in now, email Thame?s Got Talent at pickme@thamesgottalent.co.uk.

    To secure tickets for this event, which promises to showcase some amazing local talent, please contact the Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity on 01296 429975, visit www.thamesgottalent.co.uk or visit the Reception Desk at the Spread Eagle Hotel.

    Tickets are