Join us on - Facebook

 

Feelings run high after Elms plan gets the green light

On 25/07/2015 At 1:19 am

Category : Missed a ThameNews story?, More News, Thame news

Responses : 19 Comments

** The text in italics below was omitted from the original report. PLANS for 37 new homes on land at The Elms, just off the High Street, Thame, which have been been the subject of much criticism, suspicion and bad feeling, including attracting over 2,000 signatures to a petition against it, have been passed by South Oxfordshire District Council.

Despite objections from English Heritage and SODC’s Conservation Officer, and objections to the plan from Thame Town Council, the planning committee felt that the benefits offered by the development, including improvements to the neighbouring park, the quality of the build, new public open space and the 40% affordable housing provision, outweighed any possible detrimental impact from the development.

In a statement to Thame.Net, the applicant, Simon Vickers, welcomed the decision. He said: “We are very pleased that the SODC planning committee affirmed the view of their officers and acknowledged the tremendous amount of thought that had gone into the scheme. They also praised the extremely high quality design. They further acknowledged that there will be substantial benefits to the town in terms of a major new park, improvements to the existing park and new homes that will be built in the most sustainable of locations. With the extremely upsetting and unwarranted personal attacks by a few people, it is gratifying that our approach has been completely vindicated. We now look forward to continuing to work constructively with the Town on the implementation of something that we truly believe will be a scheme to be proud of.”

But others have reacted with less enthusiasm. Speaking after the decision, Thame resident, Adrian Reynolds, who spoke against the application, said: “We were told that by voting ‘Yes’ in the Neighbourhood Plan referendum, ‘this site will be developed whether you say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and ‘if you vote ‘No’ you will have more development forced upon you’. That was what was stated in all the campaign literature. What people voted for, was to have more say. You have just run rough-shod over Thame, over the 75% who voted to have more say over development.

“I cannot express how disappointed the majority of Thame is over your decision today.”

SODC's Planning committee deliberate over plans to develop land at The Elms

SODC’s Planning committee deliberate over plans to develop land at The Elms

Before the committee reached its decision, four votes to two however, a lot was said from both sides at the planning committee meeting on Wednesday, July 22. Four people spoke against the proposed development, including two Thame Town Councillors, and a group of three people spoke for the applicant, Rectory Homes.

Thame Town Council’s objections

Referring to this ‘very controversial application’, Cllr Mary Stiles told the committee that many people in Thame, incuding some town councillors, were opposed to any development on this site, and that the town council was objecting to this particular plan because it did not comply with the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, nor was it supported by SODC’s Conversation Officer or English Heritage. The four reasons for TTC’s objection were, she said, overdevelopment of the site, traffic generation, harm to the Conservation Area and insufficient affordable housing.

Cllr Stiles went on to explain that in the town council’s view, over development was in three ways: The crescent part of the application was contrary to Policy HA4 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, which restricts residential development to the  eastern and south  eastern side of the site. Half of the crescent is too the south and south west; the crescent is also too close to the listed building, harming its setting; most of the dwellings are three storey buildings, again contrary to Policy HA4, which restricts the height to two or 2.5 storeys.

On traffic generation she said TTC was concerned about this, both during construction and after the dwellings are occupied, in that increased traffic movements, in particular those generated by construction vehicles, would have an adverse effect on local residents. Nelson Street, Cllr Stiles said, was due to be made one way (South to North) because of current traffic and parking issues, and Rooks Lane is already one way North to South, and is very narrow, as is Southern Road.

“We are very concerned about the level of harm to the Conservation Area,” she said, “if this application is recommended for approval, when both SODC’s Conservation Officer and English Heritage are opposed. The Conservation Officer’s view that in order to comply with HA4 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and the 1990 Planning Act re Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, the development would need to be significantly reduced to no more than a few houses in a parkland setting (with the shortfall accommodated elsewhere – which is already in the Neighbourhood Plan, if fewer than 45 houses are built on this site) and English Heritage’s view is that the harm this application causes to the listed building would only be justified if the proposals delivered a very high level of public benefit, which could not be obtained by other means.

“Providing public access to the rear of the Elms does not need this development – a simple footpath would suffice.”

Thame Town Council’s view was, Cllr stiles went on, that the target 40% for affordable housing should be achieved within the development itself through actual affordable units. “Thame councillors know that people need houses, but developments must not cause harm to the Conservation area. I urge you to refuse this application,” she concluded.

In responding to a question from Cllr Joan Bland, Cllr Stiles said that there was ‘plenty of scope’ in the Neighbourhood plan to provide the 37 houses in this plan, else where in Thame.

Next to speak was Adrian Reynolds, a resident of Thame for 24 years, and Dr Paul Winsom who was speaking for the Elms Petition Group which has lobbied against development at The Elms, and to have the site removed from the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. Mr Reynolds told the planning committee that the purpose of his objection was: “..to safeguard Thame’s Character as a Market Town.” He continued:

The inclusion of The Elms in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan is questioned

“The thrust of the TNP Referendum YES campaign was that voting ‘yes’ for the TNP would give Thame a greater say in its future, it would then be cheating everyone who voted ‘yes’ in that referendum to ignore the wishes of Thame Town Council and Thame’s residents. Furthermore it would be entirely wrong to interpret the ‘yes’ result as meaning the people of Thame want the Elms developed. A very large number of Thame residents have signed the petition against the Elms and have lodged their objections on thame.net and in the Thame Gazzette, while there has not been a single supporter outside of the developer.

“The inclusion of the Elms within the TNP is linked with Lord Williams Lower School which confuses the issue of exactly when this site would be needed or drawn upon. The late Inclusion of the Elms was also the most unpopular inclusion of any of the sites with Thame residents who overwhelmingly stated they did not want it in the plan. In addition the inclusion has the spectre of ‘Conflict of Interest’ hanging over its inclusion as ruled by the Royal Town Planning Institute and this only serves to bring doubt to the integrity of any decision to develop the site.

seans_choice_crendon_beds

‘Uncertainty in the town’

“There are several large changes to our Market town that have already been agreed by planning, but whose impact is far from being understood. Principally: The Cattle Market is moving out of the town, the move has been agreed but no plans have yet been agreed for the use of this site adding even more uncertainty; the industrial development at Howland Road, which itself breached the TNP illustrating that it is not in fact sacrosanct; building of the remaining 775 new homes on more publicly supported and sustainable sites.

“All these changes are bringing huge uncertainty to our town. We are now here considering compounding this by destroying the Elms Conservation Area which is an important and defining feature of the town, as recognised in the Thame Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The development of The Elms represents no sizeable benefit to the town but represents a hugely increased risk to the town’s character and its history as a Market Town.

“One unforeseen impact of the decisions already made seems to be the difficulty of letting existing industrial units within the town. This has already led to a public consultation to develop the brown field site at Goodsons Mews to provide over 30 homes near the town centre. If approved this would negate the need to develop a Conservation Area. Surely developing a Brown Field site is preferable to developing a green field site (I say this even though Goodsons Mews would have a far greater impact on my own home than the Elms would).”

Mr Reynolds concluded: “If this development does become necessary to meet future requirements then the conservation area will still be there to be destroyed. But to grant permission for the Elms BEFORE the impact of any of the planning decisions already made is known, is not planning but chaos and puts our Town at completely unnecessary risk and it is very difficult to understand why this would be done.

‘Don’t ignore the wishes of Thame’

“With the controversy and unpopularity surrounding the inclusion of the Elms in the development plan NOW is definitely not the time to decide to destroy this key feature of our Town.

“I understand that Simon Vickers purchased the Elms as a family home so I am sure that there is no urgency on his part to develop either and thus no livelihood will be placed at risk by refusing this permission. I Ask you not to look at this application in isolation nor to ignore or misinterpret the wishes of the people of Thame and, not to ignore the wishes of Thame Town Council. I also ask you: Not to ignore the concerns of English Heritage; not to ignore the concerns of your own Conservation officer; not to ignore you own advice of 2006 as contained in Thame Conservation Area Character Appraisal and hence to Refuse this planning application for the good of Thame.”

‘Major flaws in the application’

Dr Paul Winson then spoke on behalf of The Elms Petition Group, the members of which, he said were concerned that there were ‘major flaws’ in the application.

Firstly, he said: The building designs, layout and massings contravened the Thame Neighbourhood Plan because they are three storey buildings and the plan allows for a maximum of 2.5 storeys. The actual designs of the buildings he said:”… bear no resemblance to any other dwellings in Thame and therefore appear particularly alien in this setting.”

Dr Winson said that The Elms was brought into the Conservation Area in 2006 by SODC, specifically to protect it from unnecessary and unsympathetic development. “This proposal makes a mockery of the whole concept of conservation as this proposal irrevocably changes the look and feel of this greenfield site and of course the adjoining park,” he said. “The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to enhance the Conservation Area – not destroy it.”

Dr Winson then referred the access to the site through a proposed new entrance from Elms Road that will be fed by Southern Road, Nelson Street, Rookes Lane and ultimately the High Street. “This road system is struggling to cope with the existing level of traffic,” he said, “let alone the extra traffic generated both during and after construction. A heavily used pedestrian thoroughfare including large volumes of children and the elderly, will become more dangerous.”

He concluded by asking that the plan be refused to allow the houses to be reallocated to a more sustainable development location around Thame.

Affordable houses and improvements to the park

Speaking on behalf of the applicant Rectory Homes, Jolande Bowater, of Barton Willmore, told the committee that the plans for The Elms complied with both SODC’s own Core Strategy and the basic conditions of the Thame Neighbour Plan, and that no challenge had been made to the adopted plan. “There have been extensive discussions and consultations over these plans,” she said, “and your Officers have concluded that permission should be granted.” She told the committee that four years’ work had gone into the plans and that there had been engagement at all stages since 2013.

They had, she said, improved the lay-out as requested and also made changes to the proposed improvements to Elms Park.

Ms Bowater confirmed that there would be 40%, that’s 14 affordable homes provided. Answering the concerns about the height of some of the homes, she said that their height did not go against the Neighbourhood plan and that they would be no higher than nearby houses. She added that the scheme would mean the minimal loss of trees and that a payment of £300,000 would be made to the town council for improvements at Elms Park itself, improvements that would be decided through public consultation to be carried out by Thame Town Council.

Any harm to the site of the housing development itself would be ‘less than substantial’ she said.

Planning Committee member, Cllr David Turner, asked Ms Bowater why the row of houses on the Park Street boundary end of the plans could not have been moved further south to reduce the impact on the existing properties, to which she replied that they could not because of a large Oak tree in the way and that it was felt better to maintain a wide space at the point where the site is accessed by the public from the park next door.

‘Serious reservations’ about the development

The next speaker was Cllr David Dodds, who is a District Councillor as well as being a town councillor. He told the committee that when The Elms element of the plan was consulted on (Ed. the Draft of the Neighbourhood Plan), out of 39 responses only seven were in favour of the site being included. He said that in all the references made to the relevance of the Neighbourhood Plan, the officer omitted ESDQ 15 and  ESDQ 20. (Ed. 15 says: ” Developers must demonstrate in a Design and Access Statement how their proposed development reinforces Thame’s character.” 20 says: ” Building Style must be appropriate to the historic context.”) and that he hoped the committee had ‘seriously read, very carefully’ what English Heritage said and what SODC’s own Conservation Officer had said. “There are, and will remain very serious reservations about development on this site.”

Cllr Dodds too expressed his concerns about ‘the nightmare’ of increased traffic in the surrounding streets, particularly mentioning the ‘tricky’ junction at the Southern Road end of Windmill Road.

He concluded: “The town council, who are the holders of the Neighbourhood Plan, voted against this application. They have full knowledge. Please take notice of that.”

75% voted for the Neighbourhood Plan

Planning Committee Member, Cllr David Turner, asked Cllr Dodds how many people voted in the Neighbourhood Plan referendum, to which he was told 2,900, 75% of whom voted ‘Yes’.

The Planning Officer in the case, Emily Hamerton, in her summing up, said that Historic England (formerly English Heritage) and the Conservation Officer’s evidence ‘were only concerned about historic issues’. The plans, she said included affordable homes, were sustainable, the site had been allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan and was of a contemporary design. She recommended that it be approved.

‘The harm is outweighed by the benefit’

Cllr Margaret Turner, Ward member for Didcot West, proposed Approval of the application and she was seconded by Cllr Anthony Dearlove, Ward member for Didcot South. Cllr Margaret Turner said: “The application complies with our policies and the harm is outweighed by the benefit.”

Cllr Joan Bland, Ward member for Henley-on-Thames, said: “I have heard what has been said. If we approve this application, we would have lost a major lung in the heart of Thame and it will never be replaced. My conscience will not allow me to agree to this. This site should never have been in the plan (Ed. TNP), which states that it could be built on but not that it should be, and it could be saved for our heritage.”

Cllr Richard Pullen, Ward member for Benson and Crowmarsh said: “This development will enhance the area and benefit the community.”

Cllr Toby Newman, Ward member for Wheatley Parish, said: “This is a tough one – a lot of people are against this plan and there are strong feelings but from my perspective, (the development) is well designed. I am also conscious that this area of land has been closed off and without this development would remain private and not seen by the public. I also recognise that it has been allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan which was voted in by 75% of those who voted.”

Cllr Dearlove said that he thought it was ‘a well thought out plan’, and that the site would be opened to the public and so ‘the benefit would out-weight any thing else.’ Cllr Margaret Turner added: “I can understand people’s anxiety. The view will change. But this is a fantastic location and the trees will soften the views. It is an allocated site and well designed, and a lot of work has gone into a good, sustainable site.

“I just hope that when it is finished, the people of Thame will see the benefit.”

The Planning committee then voted 4 votes to 2, to pass the application.

Add your comment

XHTML : You may use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled website. To get your own globally-recognized avatar, please register at Gravatar.com

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



Comments

  1. “There is no point in conserving something that serves no purpose.”

    With incredibly ignorant statements like this, its no wonder ‘Hugh’ prefers to hide behind an alias (Hugh Jarse) on this site. I doubt anyone with even an ounce of intelligence could ever describe 10 acres of meadowland as ‘serving no purpose’.

    Elms Field has contributed more to this town and planet than you or I could ever comprehend. Just because you can’t walk through the land or live on it currently doesn’t mean it serves no purpose. In fact, its only the choice of the current custodian that the field doesn’t do anything ‘visible’ at the moment. Up until a few years ago I understand sheep grazed and furthermore, in living memory, the land hosted community events too. That’s not to mention the millions of tonnes of CO2 it has ingested over the years and the millions of species that have no doubt called it home too!

    The funny thing is, the environmental impact of developing this land isn’t even the most compelling reason not to. Have you considered traffic generation during construction and after development? How about pressure on infrastructure such as schools and nurseries in this vicinity? What about the security implications of opening up the park on the side (bearing in mind the park was enclosed at the Broadwaters end only a few years ago to curb anti-social behaviour)? How about the privacy implications of the double storey balconies overlooking the park? I won’t go on…

    I actually have no real desire to see the land opened to the public, development or no development. This is the private grounds of a lovely house, no reason why it shouldn’t stay that way to be enjoyed by someone who can afford it (which, ironically, is what the current owner told people he intended to do of course!). That said augmenting Elms Park with this land as a nature reserve would be pretty awesome and provide real benefit to the Town too. Not sure you can say that about a bunch of 3 storey, flat roofed houses?!

    The fact that this land need not be developed because the comparatively few houses in this development could be distributed to other sites in Thame (as 8 already need to be) proves that this is an unnecessary development and really should be conserved as a greenfield site as it always was destined to be. Until it got railroaded into the TNP that is.

     — 
  2. Thanks for pointing that one out, it was noted but if you were displaying that level of ignorance wouldn’t you also use a pseudonym

     — 
  3. Huge Arse (Hugh Jarse) lol

     — 
  4. Hugh,

    Please do not misrepresent me in your replies. I am not claiming to speak for anyone just pointing out facts.

    It is interesting that you feel that 2100 is a small number and 2175 is a large number and I assume you apply this same philosophy to using the term ‘many people’.

    It is also interesting that you feel the Elms serves no purpose, in stating that you are not disagreeing with me but with English Heritage and SODC who classified the Elms as a Conservation area and gave extensive reasons for doing so that you may wish to read.

    Lets agree to differ as I am only interested in discussing facts and you seem to have gone down the root of personal attack so I will not debate further but allow the facts to speak for themselves.

    Regards
    Adrian

     — 
  5. Adrian, you asked me to explain my stance that there are many people in Thame who are quite happy with houses being built on the Elms, I believe I have explained that through the numbers who approved the TNP and the small number who signed the Elm Petition.

    Unlike you I’m not making any unjustified claims to speak for the majority of Thame residents, just pointing out that there many who disagree with your views.

    As an aside, the areas that were used for the Shakespeare production around the house last year aren’t being developed, so I’m sure that future generatations will still be able to enjoy similar events.

    There is no point in conserving something that serves no purpose.

     — 
  6. Thanks Hugh,
    It is not safe or that easy to state that the people of Thame who voted for the TNP voted for the development of the Elms. The YES campaign leaflets explicitly stated (misleadingly) that it would make no difference to the Elms if they voted YES or NO.

    Whenever the Elms was discussed at public consultation it was overwhelmingly voted against yet it still got included in the TNP. No one has been able to explain that and I have asked extensively.

    English Heritage and the SODC both consider the Elms to be an important site, generally areas of a town that achieve conservation status are not run of the mill. I agree with you that the Elms can be of more benefit to the town but I disagree that destroying it is the best way to achieve that.

    As an aside double the legally allowed amount was spent on the TNP YES campaign which was much better publicised and funded than the Elms Petition yet achieved only a few more subscribers despite its misleading campaign literature (I have examples of this if you would like reminding).

    I hope you enjoyed the Shakespeare production in that wonderful setting it is a shame future generations will not be able to.

    FYI I am not a nimby who overlooks the Elms I am a concerned resident of 24 years that cares about the town and its character and feel that now is not the time destroy the conservation area especially with all the other changes the town is undergoing (Industrial area, cattle market, extensive housing).

     — 
  7. Ah, yes. I see what you mean. Good point

     — 
  8. Yes the total population is close to 12,000, but I was referring to the number that are old enough to vote, which I believe is between 8000 and 9000 people.

     — 
  9. I think the point in this case is that, whether you support or oppose development of The Elms, this particular application/design is not right for the town in several key ways. It does not even conform to the Thame Neighbourhood Plan.
    This is all agreed upon among many of the key players in the planning process including Thame Town Council, SODC’s Conservation Officer and English Heritage.
    In fact, just about the only person, other than the developers, that actually thought this application was acceptable is the SODC planning officer, Emily Hammerton who chose to accept the developers subjective opinions on issues such as the heritage impact of the development whilst ignoring the opinion of her very own Conservation Officer who clearly stated these opinions were incorrect. Why bother employing someone to advise you if you’re going to ignore their advice?
    Another obscurity of SODC planning is that the committee members from the parish (i.e. Thame’s District Councillors) were not eligible to vote on this decision. Thame’s council was asked for their opinion on behalf of the people of Thame and they UNANIMOUSLY asked SODC to refuse permission as it wasn’t right in this instance and presented relevant planning reasons. Yet, of course, this plea was clearly ignored.
    So if you think democracy has been upheld by the passing of this application then you are sadly mistaken. The Neighbourhood Plan has been overridden in several key ways and the democratically elected representatives of the people of Thame have been ignored, in fact, it would appear that Thame has had very little say in this application in any way.
    To gain an insight into the competence of the planning committee on the night of the decision, they discussed the proposed Nelson Street 1-way system as helping traffic flow. Of course, anyone with any insight into the area will know that this proposal has been scrapped by Oxfordshire County Council and the committee had to be told by a member of the public attending the meeting that this was the case (they told her ‘sit down, shut up’ of course).
    Finally, 2 things amaze me about all of this. Firstly, I can’t believe that on the night of the meeting there were only 3 or 4 Town Councillors there representing the town and secondly why has the Town Council not made a stand against this decision since it was made – not a hoot out of them saying how disappointed they are let alone launching some sort of legal case due to the breaking of the neighbourhood plan. Makes you think they just don’t care?

     — 
  10. Claire, thanks for the numbers. All I said was that there were a great many people in favour of putting houses on the Elms, however your research seems to indicate that we have 2,175 in favour of the Neighbourhood plan that included development on the Elms, vs the 2,100 who signed the anti-petition. This could be interpreted as the majority were in favour!

    Pointing out that barely a quarter of the Town voted Yes for the Neighbourhood Plan and therefore it’s not a majority view is a spurrious argument. Of those who voted, the majority were in favour, thats how democracy works!

     — 
  11. EDITOR: Thame’s population is nearer 12,000 Claire.

     — 
  12. If 2900 people voted in the Neighbourhood Plan referendum and 75% of those voted yes, as reported in the article above, that makes 2175 people who voted yes. The electorate in Thame is somewhere between 8000 and 9000 people so barely a quarter of the town voted yes. Not what you would call a majority.

    The real shame is that the Elms site ever ended up in the Neighbourhood Plan. And that the planning application ended up being voted through by 4 councillors out of a committee of 11 – that doesn’t seem like democracy to me?

     — 
  13. I find it difficult to believe but I actually agree with you this time Hugh !
    I have lived in Thame for a similar time as you & my wife, more than double that & neither have experienced the Elms ! I certainly voted for the NHP to develop the site

     — 
  14. Adrian, that’s easy.

    1. The majority of the Town approved the neighbourhood plan that included developing on The Elms.
    2. Only 2,100 people signed the Elms Petition depspite the widespread publicity.

    I’ve lived in Thame for almost 20 years and the first time I saw the Elms Field was when the Shakespeare production was held there last year. What use is an empty field to anyone other than the nimbys who can see it?

     — 
  15. Hugh, Could you qualify “a great many people” please because it is my experience and the experience of every public consultation there has been on the Elms that the residents of Thame do no want this development. This is also reflected in 2100 people who have signed the petition against the Elms most of whom live in Thame. I understand that you feel that it is ridiculous to call the Elms a ‘Key’ feature but this is the conclusion of the “Thame Conservation Area Character Appraisal” of 2006 which has several paragraphs on why they think that so I wondered if you could again qualify that statement a little so I can understand the alternative view. Thank you.

     — 
  16. There are a great many people living in Thame who are in favour of putting houses on The Elms. Calling The Elms a “key feature of the Town” is rediculous – it’s land close to the Town centre that we have no access to anyway.

     — 
  17. Do any of those who voted for the development live anywhere near Thame? Farewell democracy.

     — 
  18. Thank you for your kind words Norman. It was felt important that the people of Thame who were unable to attend the meeting in person, because of the distance and the timing, were able to read about what happened, and who said what! Perhaps important planning meetings like this should be held in the towns that will be affected by the decision.

     — 
  19. Thanks for this report. Very helpful and informative. Local journalism at its best.

     — 
Theme Tweaker by Unreal