22/02/13…….Thame Neighbourhood Plan ? Examination in Public (Cont?) Employment land

FOR those who could not make the public Examination meeting for the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, and to record this historic occasion in Planning history, ThameNews.Net has been publishing notes from the meeting in instalments. Today’s section is the part of the agenda devoted to the section on new employment land.

AT the start of the afternoon session of the Examination on Tuesday (19/02), the Examiner, Mr Nigel McGurk, reiterated that Neighbour Plans were a new way of planning, introduced by the Localism Act, which provided communities with the power to set priorities for local planning. ?Examinations are not forums for debates,? he explained, ?but are for the Examiner to obtain further clarification that the ?Basic Conditions? are being met by the plan and that it has regard to National planning policy, as well as being in accord with the general terms of the Core Strategy.?
He added that NPs must contribute to a community?s sustainability and Human Rights.

Mr McGurk then called Mr Murfitt, from SODC to the table. Mr Murfitt said that unemployment in Thame was 3.4%, half the national average, and that 34% of people work away from Thame. ?We want more people to work in Thame,? he said, and explained that three hectares of employment land was needed in the town. The Plan is for Use Classes type B1 and B2-type business he explained, but that this was not meant to restrict Class A1.

The next speaker was Mr Charles Castle, for the Castle Trust, whose representation was about Employment Land, Non-Allocated Site 16. The Examiner asked Mr Castle why his view was that Site B (allocated in the plan FOR Employment land) does not meet the ?Basic Conditions? but that his land, to the North West of Thame, does, and why?. Mr Castle replied that Sustainability requirements place special emphasis on transport and that his site offered excellent access to main roads, including the M40, and good bus services. He said that there was good scope for a Park and Ride facility and that there was an agreement with Oxfordshire County Council that if site F was developed, extra buses would be provided.

The Examiner asked him again why the Allocated site did not meet the Basic Conditions for employment. Mr Castle replied that it would pull heavy traffic movements into the area, particularly to the Ring Road, which he said currently only carries light traffic. He said that British Oxygen and the Thame Industrial estate were put there as a means of getting the Ring Road completed. Therefore, it was his view that, now that it was completed, there was no need for further development.
Mr Castle then said that since the NP (Neighbourhood Plan) programme had been put in place, his Trust had been approached by a national company (which he said he could not name) that needs five hectares of land.

Mr Castle was followed by Mr Mark Stitch, for Barton Wilmore/Stoford (pictured), promoting site B for employment land. He was asked to tell the Examiner why this site met the ?Basic Conditions?. Mr Stitch replied that his camp believed the site satisfied National policy and advice regarding Sustainable development. ?We consider that the site can deliver the employment, economy, social and environmental role needed by the local planning authority to meet the needs of the local area,? he said, concluding: ?We want to be on the site as soon as possible to meet market demand.?

Mr Sitch added that in his view, site B exploited alternative modes of transport; buses, pedestrian and cycling via the Phoenix Trail, to large, residential areas of the town, and that it lent itself for employment as it was not of high landscape value. He felt that a good business case had been made for site B, and that it had local support in that 63% of respondents supported the site for new employment. ?We have the opportunity to create employment and economic benefit to the town from a site that has links to existing employment areas,? he said. He concluded: ?Site F would encourage out-commuting, whereas our site B, would discourage it.?

Referring to the fact that part of site B is in the ?Blast Zone? of the British Oxygen works, the Examiner asked Mr Stitch if there were any Health & Safety issues that might impact on the site. Mr Stitch replied that there were not. One third of the proposed development is in the middle of the zone, he explained, but it would be compatible with the site?s use for employment, according to the HSE?s (Health and Safety Executive) response.

The Examiner then asked Mr Stitch about the reference to Warehousing in his representation, and if he considered the plan would be met equally by warehousing, as it would by Office and Hightec industries. Mr Stitch replied that a full range of uses had been tested and consulted upon and referred to the evidence in the NP.

Sue Rowlands, speaking for Thame Town Council, was asked by Mr McGurk why TTC considerrf that the planned principle uses of B1 and B2 for that site met the ?Basic Conditions?. ?We want to encourage the high quality, high Tech jobs that Thame is known for,? she replied. ?But we do not want to exclude B8.?

COMING SOON ? speakers: Shopping and The Cattlemarket ?Mr Bob Williams (For Thame Farmers Auction Mart) and Sue Rowlands, Tibbalds (For Thame Town Council)