Full house for anti Elms meeting

THE strength of feeling against the proposed development of land at The Elms, Thame, for housing was made apparent at a packed public meeting on Thursday (14/08) called by the ‘Save The Elms’ group.

The large hall at the Thame Barns Centre begins to fill up for the ‘Save the Elms’ public meeting

It was standing room only for much of the meeting, lead by Tom Marianczar, with contriubutions from Richard Jeffries and Peter Webb, the leading promotors of a petition and campaign aimed at rallying opposition to the plan to build 45 homes on the site and associated plans to include a public space and alterations to the public park next door. The group wants the site completely removed from the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and the 45 homes allocated to other designated sites in the plan.

Tom Marianczar explained the main reasons behind the group’s opposition to the plans, including what he called, the site’s ‘questionable’ inclusion in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, and his assertion that no town councillors were included in meetings that lead to The Elms being included in the TNP.

He questioned the validity of a ‘Heritage Statement’ submitted to the town council and the planning authority, and included in the assessment as to whether the Elms should be included in the TNP, that was commissioned and paid for by Rectory Homes, the developer that wishes to build on The Elms. He also questioned why a late letter from English Heritage stating that the proposed development at The Elms would be ‘deeply damaging to the setting’ of The Elms, was not drawn to the attention of town councillors at a meeting about the TNP in October 2012.

There was much discussion at Thursday’s public meeting about the proposed plan for changes to Elms Park itself, which the developer would pay for if planning permission was granted for the houses next door. Tom Marianczar explained that the local NAG group (Neighbourhood Action Group – now disbanded) had decided, after public consultation, to fence in the back of the park (the Windmill Road end) and so limit the entrance and exit points, to lessen opportunities for anti-social activity in the park. His contention was that providing another public entrance via The Elms, which is included in the plans, would negate this advantage.

Peter Butt, a previous Chair of the Thame NAG, was at Thursday’s meeting and keen to explain that, as there was no lighting in Elms Park then, the fencing provided the best value at the time. (See archive news report: https://www.thame.net/archives/5170)

Richard Jeffries added that he feared that opening up another public entrance to the park would result in an anti-social behaviour ‘free for all’, and that previous consultations by Rectory Homes at Thame town hall had shown two entrances to the proposed development.

 Tom Marianczar drew the meeting’s attention to drawings showing the proposed changes to the Elms Park itself, which he said, failed to show clearly enough mounds which, if built, would hide important geological features of the site and which he suspected were ‘just a way to get rid of spoil’ from the building work at The Elms.

NB – Simon Vickers, who owns the land at The Elms, and is founder of Rectory Homes, the developer, speaking to Thame.Net for an earlier feature on the proposal, said: “It (the area of Elms Park) 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.” https://www.thame.net/archives/14513

 Tom Marianczar then described how the plans for the park itself showed the removal of a belt of trees NOT in the park but in the Elms field itself, two metres from the proposed houses planned for on the boundary side. When he then produced, what he said was, an artist’s impression of what this row of terraced, three-storey properties would look like from the park, there was an audible gasp from the 90 or so people assembled there at the Thame Barns Centre.

Richard Jeffries also said that the proposals included the removal of 40 year-old, what the plans describe as ‘ornamental shrubs’. They would be thought, because of their 75 mm plus diameter, be the subject of a Preservation Order. If the plans went ahead, he said: “The treescape from the park would be replaced by an urban landscape.”

The other main areas of concern discussed during the presentation were vehicular access to the side from Windmill Road, extra traffic and consequent congestion in adjoining roads and junctions, car parking problems in roads around the proposed entrance, problems in Southern Road and Nelson Street created by large lorries shifting ‘thousands of tonnes’ of building materials during the building stage. There were also concerns about the effect on residents’ parking of a possible plan to make Nelson Street and Southern road one-way, from a resident of Southern Road, Chris Rees. Tom Marianczar replied that such a plan was only conjecture at the present time but was keen to remind the meeting that a previous application for seven new homes in Southern Road had been rejected by the planning authority in November, 2013, because of traffic problems.

Tom Marianczar then spoke about a recent statement from English Heritage, stating that it is against building houses ‘on the land to the south of The Elms’. “We are not able to support these plans as they currently stand as they would contravene the agreed Neighbourhood Plan and be harmful to the setting of this important historic listed building,” the statement goes on. (See archive feature: https://www.thame.net/archives/16271)

He concluded by saying that, although details of the plan were ‘unacceptable’, “We are not discussing the detail – we do not want it at all!”

TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW; Discussion around the environmental and economic impact following part two of the presentation by Richard Jeffries.