Author: Sonja Francis

The Mayor?s final word….
Dear Mr Powell
You may call me a Hairdresser,
You may call me a socialist,
You may even call me an atheist,
But please never, ever refer to me as a Lumberjack! 🙂

Dear Editor, I feel I must respond to recent letters which seem to question the integrity of the Thame Town council with regards to the Core Strategy in specific, but also with more general overtones.

I am the newest Town Councillor, being elected in July 2008 and the last month has been the most challenging so far. I have never expected to get everything right or that decisions taken will be universally popular, but along with the other councillors, I do aim to serve our town as best I can.

I just wanted to share my own thoughts and motivations over the last few weeks. They are open to criticism and interpretation but do reflect my own thinking. These can be crystallised in the four questions I have asked myself.

Could we have handled this consultation process better? Yes, if we had not had unrealistic time constraints, not of our making. I felt that the crucial thing was that the Town Council engage the town and raise awareness as quickly as possible, and that the real crime would have been not to consult. To pull together such a process in such a short time does leave us open to criticism on style and presentation, which will have to be reflected on.

However, I went into this process with an open mind, and think that the level of debate generated, particularly at the Town meeting was well balanced, considered and did the town credit. I felt my role was to listen and take those arguments into the meeting the following day. My conscience is clear that I discharged that responsibility.

Was it right to include Site F in the consultation? Yes it was. The Town Councillors did feel that Site F did have merits, but also some down sides, but I am clear that my motivation in wanting this included was to ask the question as part of a consultation, not champion it. This option had been talked about in the town in much wider circles than the council, and not to have given it due consideration would have seemed negligent on our part.

Has this process split the town? Yes, I have never heard so much spoken about ‘them’ and ‘us’ whether that is Site F or D or the town council. I am pleased that there is some common ground questioning the wisdom, content and conclusions of the core strategy and that is what we should unite around. My own personal reflection is to ask whether the town is so divided between the two sites that we have further diluted our voice with SODC. It is regrettable if this has happened and perhaps something to which we have all been guilty.

What could we have done better? When the original timeline for the Core Strategy was scrapped in the summer, we should have perhaps been far more proactive in trying to draw up our alternative core strategy, which took account of infrastructure and the longer term needs of the town, with housing as being only one element. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but doing the above together with earlier engagement with local organisations may have helped.

Any elected Public Body is open to scrutiny on how it conducts itself. In my view this should concentrate on the issues for which it is responsible. The making of personal comments about individuals will always lower the level of debate.

I would encourage anyone with a heart after our town to consider standing for Thame Town Council. We are not perfect; we do not always agree but I am struck by a strong sense of the pride we all have in our town. This is, however, based on mutual respect for each other and our different opinions.

Town Cllr, Cliff Baker

Dear Editor, Let me start by saying I owe the Mayor an apology in regard to his voting for the proposed Site F Pig Farm development. At the time of my last writing it had been reported that the Mayor had used his casting vote to seal the Council’s recommended favoured location.

This I understand is not true and the Mayor only used his personal Councillor’s entitlement. However, if the Mayor had used the privileged extra vote then I would have still held the view previously expressed because, on the evidence of the “Straw Poll” and of my subjective assessment of the Public Meeting response to these proposals, public opinion favoured Site D as the lesser of two evils. I think 20 extra votes set against 205 represents a significant difference at about 9%, regardless of what one of your correspondents might think and of our different view of the audience reactions.

Your readers will be aware that over the past month rumours and speculation have run rife over these issues which were not helped by some Councillors and, apparently the Town Clerk, overtly favouring Site F and giving the impression that this decision was a foregone conclusion. Indeed, Councillor Dyer confirmed as much at the Public Meeting, by way of his dissertation on the “finely balanced conclusion” (his words), as to how the Town Council had come to this view.

It was, perhaps, not surprising that the Public Meeting ranged across the wider issues of whether the town should or could absorb an extra 530 new homes at either site, but this simply clouded the real issue at hand. It was my understanding the real issue for the meeting was that of the choices between Site D and Site F, which the South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) had presented as the only alternative proposals to be considered, albeit they seem to have been encouraged by some interested parties to include Site F into SODC’s deliberations. It remains to be revealed who or what organisations were the interested parties promoting Site F and I applaud Robin Gibb and his family for instigating an investigation under the Freedom of Information Act.

I now understand the Town Council meeting of last Tuesday 26th October mirrored in some way the Public Meeting, in so far as the Councillors strayed off the brief of the choices laid before them by the SODC and have thus petitioned the SODC to this extent, but still recommending Site F as the preferred choice of the Council as representative of the Thame residents. I somehow feel that the SODC will disregard these extra protestations and stick to their own agenda of nominating one of the two sites in question.

This was made pretty clear by the Clerical Officer representative of SODC at the public meeting, a lady called Beryl “Something” and I apologise for not having caught her name at the meeting. The SODC’s position requires a site big enough to warrant them demanding a developer paying for a considerable amount of infrastructure like drains etc that smaller developments will not be bound to fund. Additional to this, apparently, the SODC stand to gain substantial sums of finance from central government in respect of new build properties achieved.

Which brings me to another issue. In my view this Public Meeting had very little credibility No agenda or handout was available for the attendees giving details of the purpose of the meeting or who the Panel Members were. The only notice given was a screen displaying that recording of the meeting was forbidden. It is true that the Panel were introduced and each had a short time to address the assembled residents, but it did not seem that a public record was being made of the proceedings. Each Panel Member made their own notes and I now understand that minutes of the meeting are to be published, but from what source remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, my criticism of the Town Council being a Cosy Cartel has stung some Councillors into lusty rebuke. It is a pity that some had not been so reticent during the “consultation” period as a little less biased view may have placated the protestors to some extent. However, from where I view the Council, which includes attending the Annual Meeting when our new Mayor was installed, it does look like a cosy group. While in attendance at that annual Town Meeting, no effort was made by any of the incumbent Councillors to welcome the audience or explain the proceedings. Indeed, they went about their business totally ignoring the audience until it was time to usher us out so they could continue with “private affairs.”

Just to prove I was there I can report a slight ruffle of descent where one of the Councillors tried to raise an issue about the outgoing Mayor’s activities in visiting a European town and, maybe, inferring that a twinning proposal was envisaged. Also, it was amusing to see our current Mayor installed resplendent with his Chain of Office set off nicely by his lumberjack shirt and jeans to which one of the Members advised him that a clothing allowance was available to the Mayor. Now I don’t want to infer that the Mayor has taken advantage of this allowance, but the meeting did come across as cosy and each Councillor can, maybe, take turns at being Mayor, a sort of ‘Buggins’ arrangement.

Of course I do appreciate the amount of voluntary effort our Town Councillors put in to running the everyday affairs of our Town and I am aware that our Mayor, in keeping with tradition, will be working hard supporting all sorts of good causes. I know that many hours are given by Councillors for meetings, reading papers and discussing matters with advisors. Most of this goes on with Joe Public taking it all for granted. The danger in this, dare I say overwork, is that members may find themselves, as it were, too close to the wood to see the trees.

The fact remains that many residents felt disenfranchised from the earlier consultations that apparently took place in the Spread Eagle Hotel on 11th October and maybe discussions that lead to Councillor Angie Paterson (SODC) being associated with the Thame Today News website announcing on the 4th October: “This site (F) is being promoted by Thame Town Council and the Joint Residents Associations of Thame.”

In this regard and bearing in mind the apparent lack of notation within the public meeting, I took the opportunity to make my own notes and conclusions available to the majority of our Town Councillors by the afternoon of Tuesday 26th October, in order that they may receive an alternative objective view of the Site D and Site F development proposals. I had during the previous couple of weeks walked and surveyed both sites and then compared Councillor Dyer’s presented arguments in favour of Site F.

As an exercise I cast the eye of and applied the logic of an engineer and I am afraid the Councillor Dyer’s proposals just do not add up. I fail to comprehend the support Site F retains with the Council. In this effort I have taken apart the stated conclusions of the Council and forensically compared them with the alternative Site D. My conclusions run to about five pages and it is not my intention to write them out in this letter, but I am happy to provide them via my thamewatch@btconnect.com e-mail if any of your readers request them. I did spend a great deal of time on this matter, even if it only amounted to a fraction of the time our Councillors devote to public service.

What I would stress is that like the Mayor in respect of Site D, a development of Site F will not impinge upon my sensibilities any more than Site D, but that Site F just does not make sense. My understanding is that the flood risks to my home will be no greater or less if either of these sites are eventually chosen. (This is especially if we believe the utterances of Beryl at the Public Meeting regarding the responsibilities of the developers in respect of standards laid down by the Government’s Environment Agency.)

My concerns are that these development proposals result in a balanced community of new residents, no matter how many new homes are agreed upon in the end. Each Town Councillor with an email address received a copy of my notes and conclusions and they must have realised it was not a five minute exercise. None of them writing in your columns acknowledged any part of my reasoning, or countered any of the issues I raised including the conduct of the public meeting.
Some of us as newer residents in Thame are aware the prospect of our homes being built in the defunct grounds of the Rycotewood College raised a similar amount of controversy, as many incumbent residents objected to this development. Well, we are here now and we paid “through the nose” to share the amenities and living style of an apparently unspoiled market town. Unfortunately, most of us have not been here long enough to have had the chance of selecting our Town Councillors, so it would have been nice to have been appraised earlier about what was in prospect and not overlooked as part of the community.

Furthermore, I recognise Thame will have to expand and new residents should be made welcome as time goes by. By how much and how fast may well be dictated by many factors, but to make a wrong decision about the location for such expansion may impact upon the town in ways not conducive to the common good. In my view to stick newcomers out on the edge of town is liken to existing residents saying we don’t want you here, so you live out of the way from us. Read my conclusions if you want to know more, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Finally, regarding facetious suggestions that I might like to stand as a prospective Councillor at the next elections, this may be a possibility but, as the present Councillors know, one requires the support of fellow residents even to get off first base and this is generally what political parties provide. In any event, even if I were privileged enough to join the ranks of the Town Councillors, I guess I would end up being “Billy No Mates” judging from the invective directed to me in your correspondence column. It seems some of our cosy Councillors are unable to understand others point of view, preferring to believe they know what’s best for the rest of us. It reminds me of big fish in small ponds.

Meanwhile, bravo to the six dissenting Town Councillors. It must have been pretty hard to go against others after such a blatantly biased publicity campaign orchestrated by those mentioned above.

Yours sincerely
Raymond W L Powell
Union Way
01 November, 20120

DEAR EDITOR, I have sent the following letter to Thame Town Council regarding their comments and objections to the Coffee King application for a street trading licence:

Dear Sirs, Regarding the notes of the minutes of your meeting on the 26th October, 2010 that you see fit to publish on your web site. For such a body to have made the comments like you have and to have published them on their web-site seems somewhat reckless. It?s certainly wrong for a Council to be able to make such a statements (and publicise it) without it first being proven to be factually correct!

I would also like to address the comments you made.

?Members unanimously agreed that there was absolutely no requirement for a mobile ?Coffee King? facility, noting that there were more than enough coffee-selling establishments in the town, including take-away?

How do you know? Has the council tested the market? If so can I please have copies of their market research to substantiate your comments? I would also say that in making the comments you have acted outside your protocols for deliberating on such matters.

Can I also ask the council to justify these comments in light of their previous discussions with me since May 2009 when the town council approached me concerning the provision of a coffee stall in the Town Hall including outside seating? The correspondence consisted of several emails, two meeting and even a concept proposals being drawn up for;

A; External Kiosk upon Terrace

B: Front Lobby Kiosk & Terrace

C: Reception area Kiosk & Terrace

As you can see your comments have just a hint of hypocrisy about them.

I find your decision and the reasons for it show a complete lack of vision and against the spirit of a market town. You seem on the face of things to be responding to the objection of a shop keeper who is simply frightened by competition.

I would also point out to the council that street trading licenses are renewed on an annual basis and therefore, the need and viability of the Coffee King operation can be tested and reviewed during the initial year and the operation refined if need be on an ongoing basis. It also seems to me incumbent on any Town Council to champion free enterprise that contributes to sustainability and vitality in its commerce.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours faithfully
Peter Butler
CEO

cc;
Thame news.net
Thame Gazette