AS the controversy over the building of 45 new homes on a green space in the heart of Thame rumbles on, Thame.Net’s intern Will Worley has been interviewing all the protagonists and produced the following feature to try to clarify the issue:
MANY readers will be aware of the ongoing controversy surrounding a proposed housing development at The Elms, Thame. The meadow ear-marked for development is part of The Elms, a private property adjacent to the public Elms Park itself. The meadowland is designated as urban green space, is considered by some to be a ‘green lung of Thame’. It is a designated site in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, and local developers, Rectory Homes, propose to build up to 45 dwellings here.
Despite the Elms’ inclusion in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, the proposal has been met with some criticism from some residents prompting the creation of the Elms Petition Group, led by local resident and neighbour of The Elms, Peter Webb. The group claims to have collected over 500 signatures against the development plans. Mr Webb, as well as criticising Rectory Homes, has also levelled his sights at Thame Town Council for what he considers to be, its mishandling of the issue.
How did The Elms get into the Neighbourhood Plan?
ONE of the primary complaints of the Elms Petition Group is the allegation that The Elms site was ‘quietly’ added to the Plan at the behest of the developer late into the process of developing the TNP, following a meeting between Rectory Homes and the town council sometime in November 2012.
This claim has been strongly denied by Thame Town Council. “The Elms was in the [Neighbourhood] Plan right from the beginning of the consultation process,” said Cllr Mike Dyer in an interview with Thame.Net. “The council did not have, and would not have, exercised any right to influence what went in to the Neighbourhood Plan. It was a community developed plan; we had no control over the content of [it].” There is publically available documentation (Report of Community Planning event: 15th -19th November, 2011, page 15. 4th link up from bottom.) which shows The Elms as a possible site since 2011.
Also interviewed by T.N, Mr Simon Vickers, Director of Rectory Homes and owner of The Elms, agreed: “Thame decided to launch a Neighbourhood Plan, and as part of that they asked for possible sites, and all and sundry, landowners and developers, put forward their preferred sites…our side has consistently been in all of the options…it has come as some surprise that people have been expressing viewpoints in the press that this has been ‘slipped in’..it is a fact that it has been in there from the beginning [of the Plan].”
Cllr Dyer also stated that in April, 2012, the ‘Preferred Options’ document was delivered to all households in Thame, which asked people for their opinion on The Elms as a possible site within the Plan. The Thame Neighbourhood Plan was approved in a vote by the townspeople on May 2, 2013. In this, 76% of the 2,779 voters in the Referendum voted ‘Yes’ for the Plan.
Should The Elms be removed from the Neighbourhood Plan?
THE Elms Petition Group would like to see the site removed from the Plan. However, explained Cllr Dyer, The Elms “…can’t be taken out of the Plan, unless the Plan were to go back to referendum.” This is the case even if a large number of citizens became opposed to developing it. Any plan for the site will be subject to approval by the Planning Authority, South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC). If the proposals do not meet their criteria, and fails at appeal, the houses allocated to The Elms would be redistributed to ‘reserve sites’ designated in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Mr Webb has also claimed that it is relevant that 82% of respondents during consultations were opposed to developing The Elms. Cllr Dyer said that he was unaware of where this figure had come from. Figures that appear to support Mr Webb’s claim appear in a document – Consultation Statement Dec. 2012 (zip file, 9th link down) published by the TTC in December, 2012, where 31 comments out of 38 received in consultation, directly expressed concerns that “development on the Elms would significantly adversely affect the conservation area (Consultation Statement: 5.9, page 11).” (For comparison, 67 comments were received for moving Lower School and 39 for a community facility.) The next section of the Consultation Statement (5.15, page 11), details how the council believes these concerns were addressed.
In the same document, opposition to The Elms development was identified as a ‘main issue’ by the council (6.7, page 13), following the consultation on the preferred sites. In addition, the Consultation Report: Regulation 14 Stage (zip file, 6th link down, page 3), November 2012, also acknowledged opposition to developing The Elms, as a key point. Following this, it was decided to reduce the number of possible proposed dwellings from 60 to 45.
Despite this recorded opposition, and apparent lack of support, the Elms site survived the consultation process and remained in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan.
Has the town council been open and transparent?
ANOTHER key concern of the Elms Petition Group is the alleged “evasiveness [and] lack of willingness to provide information” on the part of the town council regarding the Elms development.
Cllr Dyer maintained to T.N that: “Everything the council does is totally transparent, because everything the council decides is decided in public meetings.”
The perceived silence of the town council on the issue of the Elms was explained by Cllr Dyer to be a consquence of the constraints put on town councillors by the Predetermination law, which is, he said, is particularly strict regarding planning. This law, he said, prevents Councillors from informally discussing a planning issue before an official debate has taken place. (For clarification of the latest updates to Predetermination under the 2011 Localism Act, see here, page 5)
Cllr Dyer maintained that as a planning application had not yet been submitted for planning consent by Rectory Homes, no formal opinion on it could be given by the council. (Mr Vickers expects the planning application to be submitted in the next two to three months.) Cllr Dyer strongly denied any allegation that the council has misled the public, and added that: “If there has been any confusion we will be happy to clarify it.”
There have also been allegations that un-minuted meetings have taken place between members of the council and representatives of Rectory Homes. Cllr Dyer stated that informal meetings, even with interest groups such as Rectory Homes, are not necessarily minuted as ‘no decisions are taken’. He went on: “It depends on the type of meeting…if it’s just bouncing ideas around, then probably ‘no’. But if it was going to contribute to something formative…contributing to something that’s going on in a Council meeting, then there would be notes.”
In another part of the conversation, Cllr Dyer said: “Rectory Homes came informally to the council with some ideas, on which we commented and then we said, ‘go away and think again’.” Simon Vickers stated that he had met representatives of the town council on numerous occasions, discussing all aspects of the project, such as constraints and opportunities, possible layouts, ecology, views and style. After these meetings, he explained: “We go away and see what we can do to take on board their comments.”
The Elms Petition Group has also criticised the employment of Jake Collinge as a planning consultant with the Town Council, citing a possible conflict of interest, because Mr Collinge is a former employee of Rectory Homes. Cllr Dyer defended the appointment of Mr Collinge, denying that it represented a conflict of interest despite being, as he said, “very aware” of how it might be seen that way. “Ever since the Neighbourhood Plan has gone through referendum, Jake has had nothing to do with anything that might involve The Elms… [if]it comes up in conversation, even informally, Jake backs out, leaves the room.”
What about affordable housing?
THE Elms project has also received criticism because of a lack of affordable housing appearing in the conceptual plans seen so far. There have been concerns that Rectory Homes had offered to pay to have the required allocation of affordable housing built elsewhere.
Cllr Dyer responded to this notion: “The suggestion has been made [by Rectory Homes]; it has not been made formally to the council The feeling of councillors is that we should stick to the Neighbourhood Plan, which requires 40% affordable housing on each individual development.” Cllr Dyer maintained: “It hasn’t been discussed in the sense that the Council has expressed a formal opinion; it has been aired; it has not been resolved.”
The suggestion that Rectory Homes could pay for affordable housing to be provided elsewhere was not denied by Mr Vickers. He said that the percentage of affordable houses for the site is currently in discussion. Rectory Homes will meet the allocation, he said, “one way or another.” If the allocation is not met on site, he explained that there were “…various ways…you can provide it offsite in another location, and you can provide financial contributions…you pay the council a sum of money so they can spend it on affordable homes elsewhere.” However, when pressed, Mr Vickers did go on to say that: “There will be some affordable housing on The Elms site.”
Is Elms Park safe?
FURTHER concerns have been raised about the future of the public Elms Park next door, which is owned by the council. When asked if the council could give any assurances that Elms Park would not be developed, Mr Dyer replied: “Absolutely!”
Mr Vickers’ response to this was that the Town Council owns the park, and that it is not under Rectory Homes’ control. “The park will be kept as a park but we will be giving some money to the council for them to bring about improvements in a way that they think appropriate,” he said, “and that’s for them to decide.” Mr Vickers said that he believed that the council saw these improvements as “a matter requiring detailed consultation.” He went on to say that there were various views: “Some people want it kept as a kiddies ‘kickabout’ area; others would like to see it as a formal parkland.”
Both parties denied that there were plans to build houses on the public park, despite some confusion among the public to the contrary. However, there have been some concerns that spoil from the development would be used to alter Elms Park, possibly creating a mound. In response to this, Mr Vickers said: “It would only be used for this purpose if the Town Council, in consultation with the town, thought that mounds would be a good idea on the existing Park. If so, that would be a more environmentally [friendly] way of dealing with the spoils. There is however a substantial prospect that the details of improvements to the existing Park might not be agreed by the time we start on site. In which case the spoil would be taken away from Thame.”
Legal issues
MR Webb has also complained that he and others have received legal threats from both the Town Clerk and Rectory Homes. When asked about this, Mr Vickers said it was because he had been advised that some of the comments made were ‘libellous’. He said: “I have no problem with anyone criticising the development, but when they make libellous comments that’s simply not acceptable.” He did not expand on which particular comments he considered libellous.
Cllr Dyer said that he believed Mr Webb was taking up too much Council time, “with allegations, accusations, requests for information that has already been provided, [ignoring given facts] and bouncing back with arguments that are distorted or designed to create confusion. It has come to the point where it has become vexatious. It was taking up too much council time.”
Environmental and historical concerns
OUTSIDE of the bureaucratic process, local residents have also expressed their concern for The Elms proposals. Local resident, Claire Forrest, is concerned “about loss of green open space, the impact that [the development] will have on the amenity and character of Elms Park next door, and the fact that this field has remained undeveloped for many years, possibly centuries, and therefore has intrinsic value as an ancient grazing field in the centre of Thame.”
Local history enthusiast, Phillip Williams, believes the area of The Elms is key in relation to local history. He believes that there is a “reasonable probability that prehistoric archaeology of some kind can be found beneath Elms Park.” (More information can be found in a published article by Mr Williams, available here, page 77, and a geological map of Britain can be found here)
English Heritage was also contacted by T.N to clarify its opinion of The Elms proposal. Whilst not completely opposed to the development, they told us that the maximum number of houses they would approve of is 35. They have also stated that “the view to the south was the most important view out from the house, and we could not support putting houses on that part of the field.”
During his interview, Mr Vickers insisted that Rectory Homes would “respect all of the ecological, all of the archaeological, all of the aesthetic [concerns] and satisfy all of the statuatory authorities.”
Will the development affect traffic?
FURTHER concerns have been expressed among some residents over the possibility of congestion in near-by streets, caused by the planned housing. Mr Vickers’ response to this was to cite the development of 100 houses which took place on Windmill Road, where he believes similar fears turned out to be unfounded. He also claimed that Rectory Homes had done “detailed calculations…which show traffic will increase, but it will not become critical.”
According to the Town Clerk, some council discussions with the County Council and SODC are already underway regarding traffic flows into the Town if the Elms development went ahead, adding however, that these were ‘far from complete’.
DESPITE the different viewpoints, the final decision about whether houses will be built on The Elms, and how many, will be made by the local Planning Authority, SODC, when a formal planning application is submitted by Rectory Homes.
By Will Worley – twitter @willrworley
REMINDER: You can have your say about this or any other Thame topic, quiz your councillors etc, at the Annual Town Meeting next Tuesday, May 6, at the town hall.
