Thame council backs Moreton residents over housing plans

THE residents of a Hamlet in the parish of Thame, have won the support of Thame Town Council in opposing a housing development which if it went ahead, would mean that the tiny village of Moreton would have grown by 20% in just over three years – more than the 15% limit for larger villages in the district.

CAPTION AMENDED: Image courtesy of Google Maps – The edge of the field on left of image is where Lucy Developments want to build seven houses

When is ‘infill’ not infill?

At Tuesday’s meeting (July 31)  of the full council, representatives of the residents of the village of Moreton, described how 68% of villages polled were either against the proposal for seven dwellings on land north of Moreton Road, Moreton, or would accept a development but only with major alterations. Moreton resident, Ken Burch, told the committee: “At first, the developers seemed decent people, asking to meet us before progressing the plan. Then, when the plan came in, it seemed there was a lot that had been brought up remained unanswered. The way the community consultation comments were presented seemed skewed in favour and so many of the residents felt unhappy. As a result we carried out our own poll.

Speaking on behalf of the developer, Giles Brockbank of Hunter Page Planning Ltd, told councilors that the proposed development did constitute ‘infill’ as it would be surrounded on three sides by other properties. However, Moreton resident, Tina Fegent, representing those residents who are totally against the plans, said her understanding of the definition of infill was ‘The filling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or on other sites within settlements where the site is closely surrounded by buildings’. “This site is not that,” she said.

The other main objections by the 36 residents who voted for No Development at all were a lack of public transport serving the village, causing future residents to be reliant on a car, the lack of infrastructure like a school, a pub/shop, poor, unsafe and isolated footpath and cycle path to Thame, and poor access roads to neighbouring villages.

The layout and design of the development, described by Mr Brockbank as:..”a bespoke scheme that complements the village”, was, in Ms Fegent’s words: “..a small housing estate with mock farmyards and barns, that appears to attempt to disguise a collection of new buildings. Overall, the sit is overbuilt and not in keeping with the village.”

‘The country needs more houses’

Comments made by the 19 Moreton residents who accepted the plan as given , included the statement that ‘Moreton should take its share’. They were also keen to ‘support local farmers’ who, they said, ‘do a lot to enhance the environment’.

“Farmers are having to diversify to survive or sell land to retire” was one comment.

Most of the group who voted to accept the proposal but with major alterations, wanted Plot One to go, believing it ‘overshadows the entrance to the village’, and wanted to stick to the original plan for five houses and not seven. If the seven were allowed, added to the seven new houses already built in the last few years, this would mean a 20% increase in the number of dwellings in the village – when SODC’s policy is for 15% growth ‘in the larger villages’. “So, why should Moreton take more?” asked the villagers.

Parking

Parking, already a problem in Moreton, would become even more of a problem, if this proposal were allowed to go ahead, believed some of the residents. “The road in front of the site is too narrow for parking,” explained Ken Burch, on behalf of Moreton residents. “The developers say they exceed the OCC requirement and provide three extra visitor spaces. Ten yof the 25 spaces are carports. There are no garden stores so the car ports will be used for mowers and bikes. Residents rely on cars and most homes with 4/5 bedrooms will have 3+ cars.

“You do the maths (to councillors) and tell me this will work!” he added.

Developer’s representative’s response

Giles Brockbank, speaking on behalf of the developer Lucy Developments, said that, in response to villagers’ comments via a public exhibition and consultation, three further parking spaces had been added to the two per house, and that Plot One had been moved away from the boundary to ‘negate any over-looking’ and a change in materials had been proposed making it more in keeping with the local area. Hedging and ‘rustic detail’ had been added he said, and trees kept to fit with the rest of village. He argued that the density of the proposal was within what is allowed by local planning policy and that the Thame Neighbourhood Plan did allow for sites to come forward for Moreton.

Mr Brockbank also stated that ‘Government policy allowed for smaller sites of at least 10%, on no more than on hectare’. With regard to the Conservation area, he said that the lay-out allowed for views through to the area and included hedgerows. “We have positively engaged with the community,” he concluded, “and have produced a bespoke scheme that compliments the village.”

Councillors’ questions

Cllr Helena Fickling (herself an Architect), asked Mr Brockbank why Plot One had no windows on the front elevation and looked like the back of the house. He replied that the plot had been re-orientated in response to villagers’ comments, the overall mass reduced by removing the car port. “If people feel strongly, we could look at it again,” he said. Cllr Linda Emery suggested that Plot one should go and the site used for a children’s playground.

Cllr Mike Dyer said: “This site is NOT infill and should be thrown out! There are no services in the village and no infrastructure. We cannot afford this bias towards larger houses when Moreton needs smaller homes.” Cllr Fickling added: “Maintaining the scale and pattern of surrounding areas is a tenet of the Neighbourhood Plan. It’s a rural setting; a site up for change from agriculture to residential. Large, open spaces are important to the pattern of the village.”

Cllr Nigel Champken Woods concluded the discussion with: “This is not NYMYism. Clearly 60% of villagers would be happy to see a development with some changes. If it were to come back before us with more work, we would think about it but not this before us now.”

You can see the full Planning application P18/S2260/FUL HERE