Priest End Development Refused Again

DESPITE a further reduction in the number of units proposed, a third plan to demolish a Priest End house and replace it with a modern development, has not met with the approval of Thame Town Council.
Two previous proposals, one for eight units and another for even, were both rejected by the town council and the district council, on the grounds that they were Un-neighbourly, out of keeping in a Conservation Area and would have meant overdevelopment of the site.
Speaking on behalf of the Developer, Rectory Homes, Jake Collinge told the town council?s planning committee last night that he was of the opinion that the increased landscaping, reduction in car parking space and a reduction to five proposed units, now meant that the proposed houses would now :?Sit comfortably in the plot and would help meet local housing needs.?
However, two neighbours spoke against the proposal, being of the opinion that the three, 2 bedroomed houses, one, 1 bed and 1, three bed house, were unsuitable in design and constituted over-development of the site.
Brigit Hill, whose lives in Priest End, told the committee that she feared that, if permission was given for this proposed development, any other property in the High Street could get planning permission for a modern development, which would result in: ??an irreversible change in the nature of this historic part of Thame.?
Mr David Clifton, another close neighbour, called the proposals: ??a great, monolithic lump,? and was concerned about an increase in traffic out of what he called: ?a very dangerous corner.? Mr Clifton was also concerned that the view from the church, and from his own home would be ruined by the proposed houses.
?This whole plan is just a profit-making exercise,? he concluded.
Cllr David Laver said that he thought the new proposals were: ?A step in the right direction,? but that he was not happy with the design of the houses which, he said, needed to be more in keeping with the area.
Cllr Beatrice Dobie was concerned about the possible increase in traffic that might be generated in and out of Priest Lane, adding: ?..especially since we do not know what development there will be on the Rycote site.?
The committee voted unanimously to recommend refusal of the plan on the grounds that it was over development of the site, was unsuitable in a Conservation Area and did not include sufficient car parking .