Thame.net

Author: Sonja Francis

  • 26/10/10…..Thame has its say on where new homes should go

    IT was standing room only at last night?s public meeting in Thame to allow residents to vent their concerns and preferences for 530 new homes required to be built in the town between now and 2027 (the Core Strategy).

    The meeting was a culmination of a week of social network discussion, emailing and a frenzied battle for which action group?s posters could stay up the longest before disappearing, the like of which Thame has not seen before.

    Although the meeting was called by Thame Town Council to gauge whether site F on the Oxford Road or site D on the South East side of the town had the town?s support, some residents used the event to question whether the town needed that number at all.

    The Town Council and some residents? groups have indicated that their preference is for site F, and held an exhibition last Monday, October 18, at the town hall to display a plan of the development, and close by a representation of site D. Option F is opposed by the Blot on Thame Action Group and some residents of the Renaissance development on the old Rycotewood site in Oxford Road.

    The meeting, held at St Mary?s church, Thame, was more-or-less equally divided between the two sites, with concerns about flooding, access from the two sites and landscape concerns, dominating the questions.

    The meeting was chaired by the Mayor of Thame, Adam Buckland and the panel included Town Cllr Mike Dyer, Thame Town Council?s Planning Consultant, Jake Collinge, SODC?s Cabinet Member for Planning, Angie Patterson and SODC Planning Officer, Beryl Guiver.

    FLOODING

    Ms Guiver said that with good drainage and the use of holding ponds, and the fact that no building would be allowed to take place on land liable to frequent flooding, neither site would lead to flooding of neighbouring properties.

    ACCESS

    There was some discussion about site F being a better choice because it could have more than one access (a negative point against site D some felt), one into the Oxford Road and another on to the A4188 by-pass. Ms Guiver replied that there would probably only be one access point from both sites, site F?s being into the Oxford Road.

    LANDSCAPING

    Several people were concerned about the effect on the landscape of both sites and Ms Guiver admitted that both options would have an impact, site F on the North side and site D to the South East, though as there was not now to be any develop in the South West Field because of the reduction from 800 to 530 homes, she stated, there would now be more scope for landscaping which would mitigate the problem for Moreton.

    530 HOMES

    Some speakers asked why the distribution of new homes required could not be spread in smaller parcels over the coming year and more be built in the villages. Ms Guiver said that 40% of the homes needed had been allocated to larger villages and a number to smaller villages. A benefit of one large site is, she said, that infrastructure has fixed costs which are too substantial for the gains of smaller developments.

    ?We have managed to get the number down from 800 to 530 and we cannot get the number any lower,? she said. ?We have to work within the current legislation and need to come up with a plan soon. We must allocate the site now otherwise we jeopardise control of where future development goes within the district and any developer can put in a plan.?

    Other matters discussed were the possible effects on local schools, the effect on health provision, the effect on wildlife corridors eg for bats, and the effect of development near what one speaker called, ?The green lung of Thame,? the Phoenix Trail, site D.

    The SODC representative indicated that the catchment area for Lord Williams?s School may have to preclude pupils from outside Thame in order to absorb more secondary pupils, but that primary school provision in the town was adequate for such growth. One more doctor would probably need to be employed to cope with the increase.

    Thame Town council will be discussing their response to the consultation (which ends on Friday) tonight.

    See: LINK for more information about the consultation and how to have your say.

  • 25/10/10…..Injury and inexperience contribute to Thame’s defeat

    MATCH REPORT – League match 23/10/10 – Witney Town 5, Thame United 2.

    Thame United were defeated 5-2 at Witney United on Saturday. Manager, Mark West was forced to field a weakened team due to injury and the non-availability of several first team regulars. Although the stand-in players gave it their best shot, many lacked experience of playing at this level, and Witney were marginally the better side, albeit the score flattered them.

    Thame opened the scoring after 10 minutes when a long goal kick was collected by Mark Jones who beat his man and ran at goal before squaring the ball to Aaron Rogers whose shot went in off the goalpost. Witney equalised 2 minutes later when Wright found the space to hit a well-placed shot from the edge of the area, in off the far goalpost. The home side?s second goal came 10 minutes later when the ball was played through to McKeon whose shot was parried by Thame keeper Milan Barisic, but the ball fell into the path of Colwell, who finished from close range.

    Five minutes into the second half, the home side scored a goal which even had the Thame fans applauding. Following a long clearance, the ball was played to Lewis in space on the right who hit a spectacular 35-yard thunderbolt pass Barisic into the top left corner. It was 4-1 five minutes later when McKeon was given the space to run at goal before squaring to Wright who hit another well-placed shot pass Barisic. Thame heads did not drop and they fought hard to reduce the deficit. Stuart Braun was unlucky when his strong shot brought of a good point-blank save from the home keeper. Braun skillfully scored the visitor?s second goal in the 65th minute when he met an Aaron Rogers corner with a glancing, lobbed header over the keeper and in off the far post. The final goal came with 10 minutes to play when Allmond, near the right by-line, hit a hard shot from an impossibly acute angle which somehow went in. In the dying minutes, Thame forced three corners, but it was Witney who took the points.

    Thame United: Barisic, Mitchell, Way (Hunt), N Rhodes, Brown (Rantle), Cowan, McDonald, Braun, Jones, Rogers, Newell (Clarke).

    PHOTO: Manager, Mark West

  • 25/10/10…..Lord Bill’s student wins Bronze for Swordmanship

    LORD Williams?s student and Thame Duellists Fencing Club member Daniel Kovacs (12) took third place in the Bucks, Berks & Oxfordshire Under 14 fencing championships at Langley recently.

    Daniel, who at 12 years-old, is one of the younger fencers in the age group and fencing in his first competition, kept a cool head and came through the group stage of the competition with three wins and one defeat and was seeded second going into the knockout phase, giving him a bye into the quarter-finals.

    He was never under pressure in his quarter final bout and guaranteed himself a medal with a 15-7 win. The semi final though was a much closer contest.

    Frustratingly Daniel was trailing by just one hit at 6-7 down when the clock ran out after nine minutes of fencing, leaving him with a bronze medal that far exceeded expectations for his first competition but also agonisingly close to a place in the final.

    ?It was disappointing that I was so close, but third is better than I expected,? he said afterwards.
    His next challenge will be to test himself at the more demanding level of the Southern Regional championships in the Spring.

    Thame Duellists Fencing Club welcomes new members, both adults and juniors. Anyone interested should call Club Chairman James Kingston on 07947 049511.

  • 23/10/10….Comfortable win for Chinnor over Cheltenham

    MATCH REPORT: National 3 SW – Saturday, October 23, 2010; Chinnor 38 vs Cheltenham 15.

    Without ever hitting top gear, Chinnor comfortably saw off Cheltenham by 38 points to 15, scoring six tries in the process and a valuable bonus point.

    Chinnor started brightly with their first try a winger?s special from fleet footed Pip Seymour. Straight from the restart, Chinnor worked the ball to number 8 Alex Fan who, with surprising pace, sped along the tram lines to dot down in the corner. Cathcart converted and with 12 minutes on the clock, Chinnor were 12-0 ahead.

    Cheltenham were next to score with an unconverted try from Richard Morris on the 17th minute, after a mix up in the Chinnor midfield. Two minutes later, Chinnor?s scrum half Prescott fielded an intended touch finder about 12 metres inside the Cheltenham half. Threading an intricate line through Cheltenham?s massed ranks, Prescott?s speed saw him dot down Chinnor?s third try under the posts leaving Cathcart an easy conversion. Chinnor?s fourth and bonus try came from a forward drive with Cawston grounding the ball for the home side. With Cathcart?s conversion, Chinnor now led 26-5.

    The next 10 minutes belonged to Cheltenham with a second try from Morris, converted by Mike Wilcox who shortly afterwards slotted a penalty goal for the Tigers as the half time whistle sounded for a 26-15 lead to Chinnor.

    The second half proved to be a little less frenetic than the first half, with the Chinnor defence preventing Cheltenham scoring further. Chinnor?s influential centre Matt Goode had to be replaced at the start of the first half, after failing to shake off the effects of an off-the-ball incident of foul play. Chinnor?s fifth try was from Harry Jackman who shortly afterwards had to leave the pitch with an ankle injury. Cathcart?s conversion gave Chinnor a 33-15 lead. Ian Stock was then credited with Chinnor?s sixth try as the home pack began to press the visitor?s line. The introduction of Whelan for Stock shortly afterwards then increased the pain for the Tigers as the match reached its conclusion with a 38-15 victory for Chinnor.

    Cheltenham must be credited for their never say die attitude and willingness to attack at pace at every opportunity.

    Chinnor will be disappointed at the two breaches in their usually reliable defence but will be pleased to have scored six tries with a gear to spare. The forced replacements in the second half seemed to disrupt Chinnor?s poise although the new players contributed well with Devine busy on the deck and imperious at the line out. Seymour was threatening throughout and back rowers, Hastings and Fan, had influential matches for Chinnor whose tight five were very solid in all that they did.

    Scorers: Chinnor: Seymour T; Fan T; Prescott T; Cawston T; Jackman T; Stock T; Cathcart 4C

    Cheltenham: Morris 2T; Wilcox T, PG

    By: Bill O’Donnell

  • 21/10/10….Robin Gibb joins Thame housing development controversy

    THAME residents, Bee Gee Robin Gibb and his wife, Dwina Murphy-Gibb, have joined the fight to question why Thame Town Council has decided to switch its preferred site for the allocation of 530 homes to a site on the edge of the town.

    Site F, currently a pig farm on the Oxford Road out of Thame, has consistently been ruled out by public inquiry inspectors in previous Local Plans and, as recently as June 2010, was deemed unsuitable by South Oxfordshire District Council?s planning professionals.

    Mrs Murphy-Gibb said yesterday (20 October 2010): ?Many of my fellow residents of Thame have expressed their real concerns about the lack of consultation, the very short period for comments to be made and the way that Thame Town Council suddenly decided to change its option to Site F, which is in an isolated site on the north-western edge of our town.

    ?Anyone reading the web site of Thame Town Council, the local internet newspaper Thamenews.net and our two local newspapers The Thame Gazette and The Oxford Times, cannot fail to understand the utter frustration that people feel about a consultation which affects the future of our beautiful town. To say residents feel totally let down is a massive understatement.

    ?Many people are asking how was this decision reached? Why weren?t the people of Thame consulted before they asked South Oxfordshire District Council to go out to consultation on these two sites? Who are members of the town council?s working party on the core strategy? Is it right that these decisions were taken in private rather than public meetings? These questions needed to be answered.

    ?The best way for people to find out what is happening is to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and this I have done today.?

    SOURCE: Press release

  • 23/10/10…..Dear Editor…..

    Dear Editor, Ref. Mr Powell?s letter dated 18/10/10.
    Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with 99% of his letter, I state again that Mike Dyer did write in his letter to Thamenews.net on 14/10/10 (see para. 5),
    ?Site D (favoured by SODC), and site F (favoured by the Town Council).?
    Liz Wiles

  • 18/10/10…..Not confused about town coucnil but….

    Dear Editor, I must congratulate Mike Dyer on being the only Town Councillor out of sixteen, willing to put his head above the political parapet in connection with the possible revisions to the South Oxfordshire District Council’s Core Strategy (read Housing Plans).

    Your correspondent, Liz Wiles, inaccurately accuses Mr Dyer of stating ?Site F is favoured by Thame Town Council?, whereas I cannot find this statement within his letters. Even though it might be true, no one is actually saying it from their side of the fence.

    It is unfortunate for the Thame Town Councillors that this perception has been engendered by the text contained in the belated letter sent to some residents by Scott Riley, of the South Oxfordshire District Council’s (SODC) Planning Policy (Department?), wherein he states “We are consulting on Site F, which has been suggested by Thame Town Council, as a potential preferred site or alternatively the site we originally consulted on, Site D.” (Of course this is Local Council Officer “Humphrey” speak!).

    What we don’t know is when the SODC received the suggestion from the Thame Town Council, who authorised it and when it was first raised in Council as a “potential preferred site”.

    I don’t believe this issue was not being discussed before October 1st when the consultation period commenced either informally between Councillors, or within closed Council Committee meetings at both the SODC and the Thame Town Council. Bear in mind we also have four elected Councillors representing the Council Tax Payers on the South Oxfordshire District Council, three of whom are listed as being on the Planning Committee (2 as substitutes?). (Mike Dyer is not one of them and uninvolved with the SODC.)

    Despite this representation, the news only broke to the unsuspecting Council Tax Payers when someone (Mrs N Mallows) from Stanton St John (12 miles away) brought the issue to light in the letters page of the Oxford Times dated October 7th. I, and my neighbour Mrs Jenson, only became aware of the consultation through an acquaintance on the following Saturday evening, nine days into the consultation period. We subsequently received letters addressed to “Dear Sir or Madam” from Scott Riley (SODC Planning Policy) on Monday 11th October. It seems the SODC’s Planners don’t know who we are but the Tree Preservation Department, or to put it more precisely, the Legal & Democratic Services (yeah, I’m not making it up), of SODC know exactly who we are when they send out their 24 page Tree Preservation Orders.

    It is apparent that Mr Riley’s letter was hurriedly sent out in response to the news getting out and the first waves of indignation hitting his mailbox. Likewise, it seems the Town Council have cobbled together a series of events, posters and a public meeting. As others have said elsewhere, all too little and too late for them to regain credibility. Now we have Helen Stewart, the Thame Town Clerk, weighing in with demands to hold the Blot on Thame Action Group to account.

    Well Ms Stewart, the boot should be on the other foot, you and your associated Town Councillors should be held to account for the early lack of action, information and the details mentioned in paragraph four of this letter. Even as late as last Tuesday afternoon, October 12th, no information was available in the Town Council Information Office and worse, the staff had no idea what was going on and I had to copy my letter from Mr Riley to them for their own information. I’m sorry, I’m not making it up!

    Maybe the early release of the minutes of all the meetings held by the Town Council and committees for the last 12 months, will dispel the misinformation that Ms Stewart asserts.

    Whilst it may be unfair for residents to aim their ire at the Thame Town Council over these matters, it is quite understandable. Of the eight Town Councillors representing the North Ward, not one of them, so far as I know, has been willing to visit either Ms Wiles, Mrs Jenson or their neighbours but, (surprise – surprise), someone has commissioned a private survey company to send round a nice young lady on Sunday October 17th , canvassing views on the matter. Well, they visited me in Old Union Way anyway. One wonders who is paying for this survey.

    To make matters worse, the residents of Old Union Way, part of the Renaissance development sited within the grounds of the old Rycotewood College, have never been visited by any of the Town Councillors in the past two or more years where residents have been contributing significant sums of Council Tax to the local economy. That is, as far as I know, with the exception of Councillor Dyer, but he visited me on other business.

    Your readers may be surprised by this, especially when you consider that, indirectly through the Berkeley Homes developers, a contribution of about

  • 17/10/10….’Focus on the issues’ says town councillor

    Dear Editor, In response to Jill Swanson?s letter yesterday ? yes, of course I and the Town Council are concerned that the consultation period is woefully
    inadequate. Unfortunately the limited window of opportunity and early deadline have been imposed by SODC, not by Thame Town Council.

    I also recognise that people feel that they have not been kept informed of recent developments, but the Town Council have been in exactly the same position. It is only in the last couple of weeks that the reduced numbers have been known, opening up the opportunity to reconsider an alternative site, and those couple of weeks have been filled with hastily arranged meetings whilst simultaneously working to launch the best consultation process that we can achieve within the time available. Far from keeping
    people in the dark, we are actively trying to engage them in the debate.

    Town Councillors would welcome, and have been actively lobbying for, an extension to the deadline but without any success to date. Given the limited amount of time that is available, surely it would be better to focus on the issues rather than tilting at windmills.

    In some of the recent correspondence and forums I sense an underlying but growing conspiracy theory ? unreasonable, unjustified, unwelcome, and unhelpful ? that it is Thame Town Council who are culpable in setting the short deadline, making decisions behind closed doors and, by inference, acting against the best interests of the community. May I remind everyone
    that Town Councillors are all local residents ourselves, elected by the community to represent the interests of the community, and that we work
    tirelessly in this endeavour. There are no party politics at play, no predetermination, no vested interests, no hidden agendas ? just the desire
    to consider the options and arrive at the right outcome for Thame. We may be the nearest and most obvious target for dissent but why the instinct to turn against the very people who are trying, against the odds, to do the right thing ?

    I hope that the whole community will use the limited amount of time available to concentrate on the real issue, engage with the debate, and ensure that we reach an outcome which preserves the character and heritage of Thame.

    Yours Faithfully
    Mike Dyer

  • 17/10/10…’Confused’ about town councillors’ views on housing development

    Dear Editor, In response to Mike Dyer?s letter of 14/10/10, I would like to question some of his statements. He states that ?site F is favoured by Thame Town Council?, however other councillors are adamant that no decision has yet been made. How did TTC come to this decision? Until June 2010, the only option was site D. Who, if anyone, has been consulted since then as to which is now the preferred site? If TTC have already decided they favour this site, why make the pretence of a public consultation? Does he speak for the whole Town Council, or is this just his personal view?

    I am confused and as some-one who will be directly affected by Site F, I have NOT been consulted up to this point.

    No one seems to have even been aware of the new Core Strategy Review, and ?Public? consultation. It was all hidden within the depths and layers of the SODC planning website, which no one would choose to visit unless to see details of a local planning application, or prompted by some public notice.

    The residents near site F only found out about all this by sheer chance- a passing conversation of one person who then phoned SODC for information. They then sent just 30 or so pre- prepared leaflets only to houses bordering site F. These were received on Sat.9/10/10. From then on, over the last week, a few local residents have had to practically force TTC into action, by repeatedly visiting, phoning their offices, and making direct contact with the Councillors.
    TTC only updated the home page of their website on 14th October, just 15 days before the deadline!

    The offer of a public meeting, display of information, market stall, etc. were hastily thrown together on 14/15th October purely in response to this pressure. Therefore, I do not see his comment of the TTC?s ?efforts to facilitate a wide ranging public consultation?, as being remotely credible. If we had not shouted loud enough, nothing would have been made public. The deadline for ?informed? comment is 29th October: The school

  • 17/10/10….Thame housing development row – more letters

    THE row over where 530 proposed new homes should be built in Thame up to 2027, continues, with more Letters to the Editor and comments on the Facebook page set up by Thame Town Council, Thame Location 530 where you can read over 20 comments so far fro local people.

    Go to LINK to view the latest letters and all the corresondence on this issue.

    To find all back stories and links to the Consultation on South Oxfordshire District Council’s website, put the words CORE STRATEGY in the Search box, top right of any ThameNews.Net page.