LOUD applause from a packed town hall greeted a decision by Thame Town Council last night (07/04) to recommend refusal of amended plans for land at The Elms, in Upper High Street, Thame.
Feelings were running high in some sections of the public gallery, during representations from Tom Marianczak of the ‘elmspetition group’ as well as from representatives of the applicant, Simon Vickers, and from the town council’s Planning consultant, Jane Dann, from Tibbalds.
Speaking first, Tom Marianczak explained that the signatories of The Elms petition were against ‘any and all development’ of The Elms for several reasons, including environmental, sustainability, conservation and traffic issues. After expressing some criticism of the source material quoted in the Planning Consultant’s report to support its reasons for recommending approval of the plan, Tom told councillors: “We (the elmspetition group) are horrified at the blatant flouting of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. Three storey houses, development to the south of The Elms house, removal of mature specimen trees and detrimental effects on Thame Conservation Area.”
He went on to quote both English Heritage, who are critical the plans, and SODC’s Conservation Officer, Samantha Allen, who has stated that: “This proposal, as revised, over develops the site constituting harm to the setting of the listed buildings and the character and appearance of this unique open space within the Thame Conservation Area.” (You can read Tom’s full meeting-statement-07-04-15)
Jolande Bowater, of Barton Willmore, speaking on behalf of Simon Vickers, the owner The Elms, explained the amendments that had been made to the original plans, after consultation with South Oxfordshire District Council. As well as the reduction in the number of houses, from 45 down to 37, the amendments included changes to the layout of the site, changes to the mix of properties of 1/2 bed houses, apartments and 3/4 bed houses; 14 ‘affordable’ homes; more public open space; landscape changes; relocation of the vehicular access to protect trees; changes to cycleway and footpath links and simplifying the drawing of proposed enhancements to Elms Park itself, which will be left to local people through consultation to decide.
She concluded: “We believe that these plans represent a development of the highest quality that will deliver a whole range of benefits to this town.”
Presenting her report, Jane Dann explained the planning policies pertinent to the acceptance or otherwise of the plan. These included that; the application site (Land at the Elms) is allocated in the TNP for up to 45 homes; that the application site is within the Thame Conservation Area and so matters of ‘Heritage impact’ are important i.e. the setting of The Elms and The Barn, both Grade II Listed buildings, in the plans; matters of design; Overlooking; Height and mass, and views. (You can read the full report HERE)
Jane’s conclusion in the report is basically that, of the key issue of Heritage, ‘significant’ harm would result from the proposed plans but not ‘substantial’ harm, and that this harm would be outweighed by the ‘public benefit’ that would be gained from the development i.e. more public open space, new views, cycle links etc.
In a statement today, the town council said: “Although some additional public benefit had accrued through the latest plans, Thame Town Council continued to recommend refusal, as the plans still do not go far enough to meet the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan.
“The discussion points that were identified as in potential conflict with the full requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan were:
– three storey town houses versus suggested 2 – 2.5 storey height
– insufficient affordable housing
– building outside the preferred boundary
– traffic movement – particularly during construction
– sensitivity of the Conservation Area”
The council voted unanimously to recommend refusal of the plans. They will now go before South Oxfordshire District Council’s Planning committee on April 22, when Town Cllr Mary Stiles will speak against the plans, on behalf of the town council.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSED BY COUNCILLORS & THEIR COMMENTS
Cllr Adrian Dite: Q “The Neighbourhood Plans says two and a half storeys, why does this plan include three storey properties?”
Architect, Anthony Lewis: A “Although they are three storeys, because of the design, they are no higher than if they were two and a half storey.”
Cllr David Bretherton: Q “Why is there no mention of any Traffic assessment in the report, particularly about during the building stage?”
Jane Dann: A “There is an agreement that this will be dealt with, and that the roads around the site will be able to cope with this.” (Laughter from the audience!)
Cllr David Laver: Q “How will the view from The Elms be affected by lighting? Will it be managed not to make the area lit up for 24 hours, causing light pollution?”
Yolande Bowater: A “This could be made a Condition (of approval). We will submit a scheme which will be discreet, but public safety will be an issue.”
Cllr Adrian Dite: Q “Although there was to be no building beyond the line of poplars going South on the original drawing, the new drawing now shows 30% of the housing is now in that area?”
Jane Dann: A “Although there will be some harm, it will not be ‘substantial’ and the Government’s test is; ‘Is it outweighted by the benefit?’ I think ‘Yes’! ”
Cllr Mary Stiles: “Our Conservation Area is very special, and I do not think I can support this plan.”
Cllr Mike Dyer: “Having looked at the original Conveyance document for Elms Park, I see nothing in it to exclude this development. But I appreciate that this is a very sensetive site so that any development has to be appropriate and must ‘tick all the boxes’ of the Neighbourhood Plan, and I am not satisfied with just 38% of affordable homes.”
Cllr Mike Dyer: “I agree with concerns about traffic during the development stage. The residents in this area have already put up with enough from the new Windmill Road development.”
Cllr David Bretherton: “I propose refusal of this development. There is no plan relating to transport issues and I am concerned about what English Heritage is saying, that harm would be ‘substantial’. This should be taken very seriously. The plan goes against the Neighbourhood Plan, and National Planning Guidelines.
Cllr Don Butler: “Through development of this site, we would be losing one of the last, unspoilt green field sites. It is rare and special precisely because it is not built on! We should think carefully about building on any green field site. I would like to see no houses on this site.”
Cllr David Laver: “English Heritage says ‘some housing’ should be permitted on this site, but that too many are proposed, particularly to the South of the The Elms house itself. I also think this is not the most appropriate sort of housing that is needed in Thame. We need more retirement housing near the town centre. This proposal doesn’t address that need.”
Cllr Peter Lambert: “My first thought on seeing these houses was, that they reminded me of a half-built Colosseum or a piece of Nazi, WW2 architecture. I am not happy.”
The Mayor, Cllr Jeannette Matelot Green: “I think I am the only person who likes the design of the houses.”
AMENDED PLANS FOR ELMS PARK ENHANCEMENTS
This item was deferred until the next TTC Planning meeting, as no official comment or report from the Highways authority had been seen by the town council, although the applicant stated that they had received a late email saying that there was no objection to the amended plans.
