Your letters

Engage with communities

Peter Neville writes complaining about “pointless and costly delays” (Standard, September 5), branding residents who objected to his planning applications NIMBYs. I think it’s important to correct some of the statements he made.

The planning system is far from perfect but its aim is to enable residents to influence the developments in our communities by ensuring they improve the way our towns provide homes and other built infrastructure, to benefit the lives of residents.

Planning laws and decisions on planning applications are the result of democratic decisions by legislators and councillors acting in the interests of ordinary residents.

The planning system is regulated by the National Planning Policy Framework, local plans and neighbourhood plans. It is the responsibility of developers to work within these plans and the responsibility of planning authorities, such as South Oxfordshire District Council, to grant or refuse consent based on these plans.

As far as I can see, the development in point is not part of the Sonning Common neighbourhood plan and should not even have been considered for consent.

The development in point was the subject of a number of concerns regarding asbestos, security, increased traffic, light and noise pollution. These concerns are legitimate.

At each point, a developer is able to modify their plans, resubmit new plans, appeal against refusals and, as a last resort, ask a minister to overturn an planning refusal. The developer only has to win once — residents opposing applications need to win again and again.

It may not be clear why Mr Neville feels we should be deprived of what are, in practice, limited ways in which undesirable developments can be prevented or modified. However, he lets slip the reason when he complains of the cost in “significant monies to my company”.

In my view, it is clear that he is using his voice to argue for a reduction in the ability of residents acting individually or collectively to influence developments in their communities.

There is a myth that the planning system is holding back house building. In fact, 1.4 million planning applications have been granted which have not yet been started.

In addition, some developers hoard land supply and drip-feed them into the system in order to keep prices (and profits) artificially high.

Rather than attempting to impose whatever developments are most profitable for his company, Peter Neville would be better off engaging with communities and stopping the name calling. — Yours faithfully,

Councillor Ian Reissmann

Member of Henley Town Council’s planning committee

System does need reform

Sir, — I would be grateful if you would allow me to respond to Adrian de Segundo’s letter, titled “Smokescreen for inactivity” (Standard, September 12), while at the same time addressing comments made by Peter Neville, the week before, under the heading “Pointless and costly delays”.

I suggest you can hardly compare the construction of a relief road around the town of Watlington to the construction of homes on a small infill site within the village of Sonning Common.

The homes are to be built on a site that was identified in the original neighbourhood plan as being suitable for single-storey homes, which would minimise the visual impact on the adjacent dwellings. That is what the villagers voted for, certainly not nine houses.

The plot was removed from the latest neighbourhood plan and it seems the village planners were unable to do anything about it. The door was opened to what we face now, family homes impacting on the retirement homes.

Interestingly, the original application was for nine dwellings but was replaced by an application for “up to” nine dwellings. Apparently, this change would provide South Oxfordshire District Council’s planning department with “more flexibility with the layout at the reserved matters stage”.

One consultee suggested the layout be changed, it seems for very good reason. The layout was not changed and, despite all the concerns and objections, nine dwellings were requested and the plans for nine houses were approved, with not one single-storey home to be seen. In his letter Mr Neville refers to the development as being “planning policy compliant”. That may be the case but it doesn’t necessarily make it right for the locality.

In his letter, Mr Neville referred to a “three-year battle” and appeared to place the blame on a small number of local “pensioners” for the delays. He should be aware that there was a number of consultations required from other official bodies, which are all available to view on the district council’s website. Two reports relate to the “drainage strategy”, with one dated as late as June 11, 2025. Planning permission was granted on August 15, 2025. I don’t see how the local residents can be blamed for all the delays, especially when it seems the drainage strategy is produced by the developer.

However, it may surprise you to read that I agree with Adrian de Segundo and Mr Neville that the planning system needs to be radically overhauled but not at the expense of public consultation and certainly not at the expense of voters being ignored, especially not if developers get even more of their own way.

So perhaps a way forward is to remove a layer of politicians, a layer of bureaucrats and the political ideology behind the rule-making. Then replace it with a layer of seasoned construction professionals who know the tricks of the trade and can provide pragmatic solutions that do not always aim to maximise profit. — Yours faithfully,

Clark Balagué

Sonning Common

PS: I would like to point out that I am on record as supporting development of the land for the benefit of the gymnasium but not to the extent of nine houses.

Concerns were all genuine

I am writing in response to Peter Neville’s letter, titled “Pointless and Costly Delays”. Mr Neville, of Elegant Homes, accuses local homeowners of trickery and obfuscation.

His inclusion of a strip of garden belonging to the neighbouring homeowners within his development site precipitated a boundary dispute. After a lengthy process, HM Land Registry reviewed the evidence and confirmed the boundary in favour of the homeowners.

While Mr Neville speaks of costs to himself and the taxpayer, he overlooks the significant financial and emotional burden this placed on his elderly neighbours, who had to defend their property rights.

The objections raised by residents, as documented on the South Oxfordshire District Council website, reflect genuine concerns — fear of losing control over our own property, loss of privacy and security. These are not trivial issues, especially for those who have lived here for many years.

I would like to suggest Mr Neville looks at his own conduct before he criticises others. — Yours faithfully,

Christine Adams

Caversham

Uncomfortable with labelling

Editor, — I cannot let the comments by Henley Mayor Tom Buckley (Standard, September 12) go without further comment but, most definitely, it will be my last. He refers to those commenting as if they are not people who “do for their communities” and he refers to “trolls”.

A “troll” on Google is defined as a “mischievous, internet-based individual who posts provocative or offensive content to cause conflict”. Comments on this matter were neither mischievous nor offensive.

Many of us commentators have taken part in community affairs and thus feel able and qualified to comment and I felt very uncomfortable to be labelled in this way.

As an ex-mayor myself, I appreciate anyone who takes on this community role. But anyone in that role must find a balance of how he or she carries themselves when “on parade”. I fully accept that dress codes nowadays are much more relaxed and I and many other people feel comfortable about that in general.

However, at certain times, it is necessary to adapt to recognise the occasion and its dress requirements. In my view the Speaker’s visit and the cadets’ parade should have had the participant’s dress requirements better recognised by the Mayor so that he dressed more appropriately to reflect the more formal nature of the function he was attending. I do hope that our Mayor might understand this but, equally, I hope he continues at “relaxed” occasions to wear what he wishes. — Yours faithfully,

Angus Ross

Laureate Gardens, Henley

Arrogant response

Sir, — I was astounded to read in the Henley Standard (September 12) the Mayor’s arrogant response to the strong feelings of those (so-called) “trolls” who dared to criticise him for his choice of dress while “inspecting” the immaculate cadets on parade.

What he fails to recognise is that it is not all about him. The important thing is about the role he represents. I was one of those trolls he so scathingly refers to and I do live in Henley (40 years) and volunteered for 20 years at the Sue Ryder Hospice in Nettlebed and, incidentally, my fellow receptionists and I were always smartly dressed as befitted the role.

So, using his criteria, myself and others are entitled to have an opinion and for that opinion to be respected. — Yours faithfully,

Rhona Mogridge

Makins Road, Henley

Astonishing defence

Sir, — Mayor Tom Buckley’s defence of his dress sense on formal occasions is astonishing. He states that his critics are not those who “give back” to their communities.

What is his evidence for this slur? My “giving back” covers being a school governor, 12 years on a parish council and chairing, on a voluntary basis, three local authority school appeals panels.

He continues by assuming that political prejudice is behind most of the criticism, again with no evidence, and implies that the critical letters from outside the Henley area render their comment invalid.

The Henley Standard has a wide circulation and all letters to the editor on topics raised are perfectly legitimate.

Particularly remarkable is his assertion that what he wears when he is “helping the people of Henley” is entirely up to him.

If Cllr Buckley accepted, as Mayor, an invitation to a reception at Buckingham Palace, I assume that he would not arrive dressed as for a day on Brighton beach, out of respect for the monarchy and for the occasion.

However, he is happy to allow his bizarre dress sense full, disrespectful expression when it comes to local institutions such as Henley’s cadet units. Cllr Buckley seems to have no awareness of, or is indifferent to, the offence he is causing. — Yours faithfully,

Douglas Kedge

Lea Road, Sonning Common

History repeating

Sir, — I was once again very surprised to see how the Mayor was dressed, with cadets who would have pressed their uniform and polished and shined their shoes as they were to meet the Mayor.

I was also very sorry to read of his attitude, does he not realise that as Henley’s elected No 1 citizen he should set a high standard of dress especially at formal occasions? I wonder what he will wear for Remembrance Day.

Recently on a hot afternoon, representing the Mayor, Councillor Ian Reissmann was photographed wearing a suit with a tie. I now do not live in Henley (one of the trolls as the Mayor so rudely put it) but I did live in the town for more than 30 years and during this time all the Mayors were respectably dressed at all formal occasions. — Yours faithfully,

Peter Giles

Earley

Adapting to the situation

Sir, — I am reminded of the wisdom of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), as presented in his Complete Essays, book three, chapter three: “We should not nail ourselves too strongly to our humours and complexions.

“Our main talent lies in knowing how to adapt ourselves to a variety of customs.” — Yours faithfully,

R Michael James

Lambridge Wood Road,
Henley

Time to start new trend

I have been wondering whether to sign up to the Free Speech Union. But frankly not even they could stop a bullet from a hateful ideologically disturbed person.

It is the nest of that deviant ideology that should be trodden into dust and the earth salted to prevent any regrowth.

The once bastions of discourse and debate, the melting pots of ideas have become bankrupted by a perversion that now prevents discourse, diverse speakers and exchange of ideas.

How a lesser able person was admitted to Oxford University is up for debate. But then to be proposed as head of the Oxford Union just undermines everything that a decent university ought to stand for.

So, to witness George Abaraonye gleefully cheering the murder of Charlie Kirk fills me with disgust. He had debated Charlie Kirk and lost; so being bitter about that decided to denigrate the memory of a better man than him. Later in an open speech he included a call to violence to institute change.

Why this person has not been stripped of his post, ejected from the university and reported to authorities for blatant incitement to violence is beyond belief. Perhaps the university is run by so many similar-minded perverse people it is impossible for them to do so.

The world has been shocked, rocked to its foundations and turned on its head.

Perhaps we should start a new trend… Taking the knee for Charlie Kirk.

Peace. — Yours faithfully,

Edward Sierpowski

Henley

Outrageous opinion

Sir, — Sometimes, in fact increasing more frequently, I have to wonder if some parts of our society haven’t completely lost their minds.

In the BBC News feed on my phone on Sunday, September 14, there was a picture apparently taken from the Observer newspaper magazine cover of the American billionaire Elon Musk calling for the UK government to be somehow overturned and saying the people need to be in charge.

How can it be in the public interest of the UK for a Sunday newspaper to highlight this incredibly stupid and treacherous comment of Musk’s? How does what he says differ from treason? And then the BBC to magnify that comment’s reach nationally and globally by putting a picture of the Observer magazine cover in its news feed.

Surely such an enormously unacceptable utterance such as that should be ignored by what we regard as our balanced media.

In fact, both the Observer and BBC, by giving oxygen to such an outrageous opinion, could be seen to provide comfort to those who want to do our country harm.

And next to the photo of Musk on the Observer magazine cover is another offensive photo which just should not have been there. — Yours faithfully,

Dan Remenyi

Kidmore End

Join in with day of peace

This Sunday, September 21, is United Nations International Day for Peace, when people all over the world will be sharing their longing for peace.

Quakers in Henley will be holding a special meeting to pray for peace, to which all are welcome, at the usual time of 10.45am to 11.45am. We will begin with some readings to lead us into stillness and prayer. The UN Day for Peace was established by the United Nations in 1981, as a way for people everywhere to affirm the need for peace.

Celebrating this day goes beyond mere words. It involves a commitment to fostering an environment where respect, kindness and empathy prevail.

It’s a time for individuals, communities and nations to come together in solidarity, reflecting on the importance of peace and taking steps to foster harmony and understanding in their own lives and beyond.

Around the world there will be prayers, peace marches, educational programmes, cultural performances and moments of silence. Many people are calling for a pause for peace, for all fighting to stop for the day.

A common theme is the need to build a culture of peace where the skills of peacemaking are resourced and encouraged, where people learn about mediation, conciliation and negotiation to replace violent conflict.

From experience in peace-making, Quakers see how violence perpetuates an ongoing cycle of fear, anger and grief that we desperately need to turn around.

Security comes not from attacking one another but from co-operating with one another.

We use the phrase “culture of peace” because we recognise that this is a process that takes time, money, attention, listening and learning.

The UN International Day for Peace reminds us that hundreds of people all over the globe are working for peace. In the stillness reflective, contemplative prayer helps us to see how we can contribute to this, each in our own way. All are welcome to join us. —– Yours faithfully,

Ruth Tod

Clerk to Henley Quaker Meeting, Henley Meeting House, 45 Northfield End, RG9 2JJ

Thank you for your support

Sir, — Thank you so much to all those who came or donated to our eighth chance2dance4charity on Friday night — it was brilliant! We had a record 51 people who spent the evening dancing, laughing and having fun with friends.

Amnesty International and Bravemind will both be receiving £273.15 each which was raised through ticket sales, raffle tickets and donations.

The raffle prizes were kindly donated by the Crown at Playhatch, the King William IV pub at Ipsden and the Herb Farm in Sonning Common.

The charity Bravemind very generously offered two tickets for the raffle for the rugby Premiership final at Twickenham in June 2026, but “my husband and I” decided we will do a silent auction via Henley Rugby Club instead over the coming months, as we feel we can generate a lot more income for the charity that way.

When we have worked out the logistics of this, I will let you all know so you can place a bid if you would like to participate.

This event was a special one as it kicked off the celebrations for my 70th birthday, which isn’t till October but this was my chance2dance.

Some of you know that I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2008 and cancer in 2019, so being able to dance the night away with wild abandon in my 70th year was not always a foregone conclusion.

I thank my lucky stars every single day. Thank you to all those who made the night such a huge success. — Yours faithfully,

Sue Bingham

Grove Road, Sonning
Common