Neighbourhood Plan challenge aired in public

THAME Town Hall has rarely seen the public gallery as full as it was on Tuesday night (16/09) for a meeting of the town council. The meeting was called to allow the Save The Elms petition group to explain their opposition to the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the proposed Elms housing development’s inclusion in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, and for the council to explain the legalities of the plan and to explain its own rationale for including The Elms in the plan.

Tom Marianczak spoke on behalf of the Save The Elms petition group, and in his openig salvo, told the council: “We believe The Elms is a completely unsuitable and unnecessary location for development and our reasons for this cover environmental, historic and traffic issues among others. Furthermore, we believe The Elms made its way into the Neighbourhood Plan under questionable circumstances.”

Mr Marianczak claimed that the site under discussion, land at The Elms, just off the Upper High Street, was introduced as an ‘additional’ site at a later stage in the development of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, by the Town Council, and that it was not formally analysed as the other six suggested designated sites were. “Instead it was presented to the people of Thame in the same way as the other sites despite never being identified as a viable location for development by the relevant planning authority,” he said.

Mr Marianczak quoted minutes from several meetings that had taken place involving the Town Clerk, the Developer, Rectory Homes and their consultants, and others with SODC Conservation Officers during the forming of the Neighbourhood Plan. His contention was that no town councillors or members of the TNP Working group had been involved in those meetings and that finally, on the November 20, 2012, Councillors were persuaded to pass the Plan for referendum, ‘without debating its content or being offered the opportunity to propose amendments’. The one single councillor who objected to building on Elms Field, claimed Mr Marianczak, was told that this was ‘not a Councillor decision’.

He went on to question the validity of the council’s explanation of how the number of houses to be permitted on the site, came to be increased from 35 to 45, and why a letter from English Heritage, expressing concerns about the site, was not presented to councillors, an omission later explained by the Clerk, as the letter having ‘arrived late’ after the end of the Consultation period.

“This situation that we are now in is because their (English Heritage) original opinion, that any development would ‘be deeply damaging’ was withheld from not only town councillors but also from the people of Thame,” he went on. “Surely this should have been made widely available through the regulation 14 statement in the Neighbourhood Plan? Yet this statement does not contain any of the responses from the Statutory Consultees which include English Heritage.

“Without such information available to them, voters could not have been expected to make a fully informed decision. It is no wonder then, that a very large number of our two thousand petitioners voted ‘yes ‘in the referendum and yet, now they have been furnished with more complete information, are asking to change the Neighbourhood Plan by having The Elms removed.

“I hope that we don’t need to tell you, councillors, that if The Elms wasn’t in the Neighbourhood Plan, it would be substantially more difficult, maybe almost impossible to get permission to develop the site. As it stands we currently face an application for development which is almost unanimously derided by the town yet stands a real possibility of being permitted.”

Mr Marianczak then turned his attention to the matter of the public Elms Park itself, which is the subject of a second planning application for changes and additions, submitted by Rectory Homes, that are dependent on the proposed development of The Elms itself next door being approved

“This land, he began, “was specifically designated for the benefit of the residents of Thame. It has its very own unique character which is created, not least by the sense of nature provided by the adjoining informal parkland in The Elms. Allowing development of The Elms will change the character of Elms Park forever and remember that the development of The Elms doesn’t work without changes to Elms Park.

“This is pure exploitation of public land for the benefit of the commercial development. There cannot be many people in this town that would find this acceptable.”

Returning to the major call of the Save The Elms Petition group, that is to change the Neighbourhood Plan and have The Elms site removed from it, Mr Marianczak explained the reasons behind this plea: “Now that the Neighbourhood plan has been in place for over a year, we have seen it tested. And we have seen it ignored. The recent approval of the Cotmore Wells commercial development (https://www.thame.net/archives/16532) is undeniable proof that the Neighbourhood Plan is not binding in any way but is merely a guide.

“We question why our petitioners are constantly being told that the Plan cannot be changed to remove The Elms when the Cotmore Wells development clearly and openly violates the plan. There was no referendum or public consultation required to override the plan and, clearly, this sets a precedent – in many ways a very worrying precedent,” he said.
“Through correspondence, most notably with the Head of Planning at SODC and more recently with MP John Howell, it has been made clear to us that there is only one source that can influence a change in the Neighbourhood Plan. That is you, the Town Council. Equally, you have proved your willingness to allow the plan to be overridden in the example of the Cotmore Wells development.

“As such, we ask that you, the councillors who have been democratically elected to represent the views of the residents of Thame, to take action.  Although we have suggested a new referendum, there isn’t any necessity to do this. We’ve carried out our own public consultation on this matter by way of the petition and, without any funding, accrued over two thousand signatures against all development on The Elms and specifically removal of The Elms from the Neighbourhood Plan.

“We suggest that a small committee could be formed comprising a handful of councillors, members of our group, a senior planner from SODC and the Town Clerk, to advise on local government regulatory matters. The aim of such a committee would be to delete The Elms from the Plan and redistribute the housing to other, more appropriate sites as is already provisioned for in the Neighbourhood Plan. This will minimise the cost to the town, the timescale in which it can be implemented and preserve this historic piece of land for years to come.”

Mr Marianczak’s final plea to the town councillors drew sustained applause from the crowded public gallery, which caused the Chair to bring down her gavel: “We are currently lucky enough to be the custodians of this town,” began Marianczak. “We have chosen Thame to be the backdrop to our daily lives. We live here and we work here. We, the people of Thame are the lifeblood of this town and without us this whole town would cease to exist.

“We have elected our councillors to represent and enforce our views and we are now making a plea to each and every one of you. The Elms isn’t just a field with a few trees. It’s a living, breathing part of Thame’s past, present and future. You can be assured that this piece of land was here, undisturbed, long before you and I, and it will continue to be here long after we’re gone. The responsibility for the state in which it is left to future generations currently rests on your shoulders.

“Let’s not kid ourselves; there is no real need to build houses on this land. There are no hordes of vagrants roaming the streets of Thame waiting for these houses to be built. We have been forced into a position by misfortune, by misinformation, by greed and short-sightedness. And we have an opportunity at this point in time to make a change. To correct a mistake. To right a wrong.

“We ask you to consider this issue rationally and without prejudice. This issue is bigger than you and I. It is bigger than any ego; it is more important than any personal conflict that may be influencing you.  We are at a crossroads in time where Councillors could sit back and allow the exploitation of an incredibly important part of Thame. But you do have an option. You can listen to the people who you represent and you do have the power to make a change to preserve this wonderful piece of land.

“Do you want to be the council that is remembered for not listening to the people that gave you the power in the first place? Instead, look to the past for inspiration for the future and protect this land as people have done for us, because once it is gone… it can never be returned.”

Ex Residents Association Chair defends the process

The next speaker was Angela Wilson, who was Chair of the Lea Park Residents’ Association, and heavily involved in the formation of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. She told the meeting: “The Thame Neighbourhood Plan gave the whole of Thame the opportunity to have its say. I wrote a letter to the local press saying to the people of Thame that they needed to form Residents’ Associations, if they didn’t have one already, because they needed to have their voices heard and to influence what would happen. People could have become involved if they had wanted to.I believe that the people of Thame have had the opportunity to say what they think.

“If there was no neighbourhood plan,” she continued, “all the houses would have been built on one site which was SODC’s preference. A great many people came and explained their view and we were able to present the options. There was wide consultation and the people said ‘yes’.

At this point there were shouts of ‘Not true!’ from the public gallery.

What are the legal factors around changing the Neighbourhood Plan?

Beryl Guiver, South Oxfordshire District Council’s Planning Policy Officer, was then called upon to explain the legal status of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, in response to the call from the Save The Elms Petition group, for a second referendum on the TNP, and, in her own words: “Why such a request would not be viable.”

She explained that, although it is not clear in the regulations, the plan could theoretically be altered but the whole process, consultation, pre-submission, Examination and Referendum would have to be gone through all over again. “If you wanted to change the (site) allocations,” she said, “you would need to demonstrate a change of circumstances since the (original) allocation had been made.”

She added that if the site was taken out of the plan, the landowner could challenge the change and may be eligible for costs. Another hazard, she said, was that others could press for the same for other sites. Also, as the plan for The Elms has been submitted, if it was refused or not determined, it could go to appeal which could go through before any new plan and a new referendum could be completed.

What did the councillors have to say?

Cllr Nichola Dixion asked Ms Guiver if the change of circumstances that could trigger a site being looked at again, had to be something specific, for instance, something like a burial site. Ms Guiver replied that it would have to be something like that, which provided new evidence that would make the site inappropriate to be developed.

Cllr David Laver asked if allowing an increase in the area of the Commercial land at Cotmore Wells farm to be extended beyond that in the Neighbourhood Plan, breached the plan. Ms Guiver responded that this was a ‘very different’ case because an allocated site had been extended rather than removed, and that it had been justified by allowing local businesses to stay in the area and by so doing, support the local economy.

Cllr Peter Lambert asked her if removing The Elms from the plan would prevent a developer from submitting in a plan anyway. Ms Guiver replied that there would not, because there is provision for ‘infilling’ within urban areas. Both the TNP and SODC’s plan includes provision to look at sites within  urban areas.

What was the town council’s rationale behind including The Elms in the Neighbourhood Plan?

During the agenda item for the council to explain the rationale behind The Elms’ inclusion in the TNP, Cllr Mike Dyer sought to clarify three points. The first was that it was ‘not a fair point’ to say that The Elms was the only site not included in the original six draft designated sites for development, because the Lord Williams’s school site too had arisen as an additional site. Secondly, he said that it ‘was not the job of councillors to decide on the sites, but that some councillors, as individuals in the groups may have influenced decisions. Thirdly, he stated that the late letter from English Heritage was considered as it went to the consultants, Tibbalds (who helped devise the TNP) as part of the documents for consideration, and he added that the letter was available for councillors to see though not brought to their attention.

Cllr David Laver said: “The English Heritage representative should have made any objections they had at the Examination meeting. ” The reply was that English Heritage did speak at the Public Examination and that as a result of what was stated, the Examiner recommended that they changed the wording of their submission (To help put this statement in context, here’s a LINK to a news report of the Examination, including some of what English Heritage said: https://www.thame.net/archives/8283 )

Cllr Mike Weply reiterated SODC’s policy as expressed in the Core Strategy that allows for some ‘backland development’ in gardens and fields etc, some of which have been passed and others rejected. He suggested that if The Elms plan was turned down, an appeal could be made to Whitehall. Ms Guiver added that Government polices also have to be taken into consideration when plans are looked at for developments in existing settlements and urban areas.

Referring to suggestions made earlier in the meeting by Mr Tom Marianczak that The Elms was introduced late as a possible site, Cllr Mike Dyer said that Public displays of plans about The Elms were provided for the public in November 2012, as a possible site. Then, he said, a paper was delivered through every door in Thame showing the preferred options, including The Elms, and the public asked to comment on them. “The accusation that The Elms ‘was sneaked into the plan’ is wrong!” he said, and accused Mr Marianczak’s group of spreading ‘misinformation’.

Referring to ‘the late’ English Heritage letter, Cllr Peter Lambert said that the letter did arrive late, but it was then put up on SODC’s website ‘where any councillor worth his salt would have looked at the website and read it with all the other information’.

Cllr David Laver then admitted he had not been aware of that letter. “I knew English Heritage were concerned early on, but was not aware of any concerns later in the process.

Cllr Helena Fickling said that no decision had been made yet by the council about the proposed development of The Elms. She added: “The Neighbourhood Plan was the result of a consensus and we have to accept the collective decision.” Cllr Welply added that the plan had been described by the Inspector as having gone ‘above and beyond’ what was expected of a Neighbourhood Plan.

The Mayor, Cllr Matelot Green, concluded that she though the TNP was ‘a sound document’ and told those in the public gallery that they had ‘ addressed themselves very well’. She added that she hoped they would attend future council meetings in such numbers.

The council voted to retain The Elms in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Statement from the Town Clerk

Helen Stewart, the Town Clerk, told the meeting: “There have been a lot of latent comments about my behaviour in this. All the evidence is available for your perusal at any time. This site is sensitive and controversial but there was nothing in the process to prevent it being in the plan. You can check my behaviour and performance.

“This town is not just The Elms,” she said, and suggested that some of those present should stand in the local elections in May 2015.

In a statement on Wednesday (17/09) the town council said: “The call for a referendum has to now be put aside and we must focus on any application that comes before the Town Council to ensure all the concerns being expressed about the development by the group (ED. Save the Elms petition group) are given serious consideration.”