Developer teams up with elderly residential firm for fourth Elms scheme

A new planning application – the fourth – has been submitted for a ‘Care Plus’ home for retired elderly on the controversial Elms site in Upper High Street, Thame, after a previous application for a care home was withdrawn earlier in the year.

The application is for: The erection of a ‘Housing with Care’ development (Use Class C2) and a communal residents centre; the creation of new public open space; the provision of new pedestrian/cycle links from Upper High Street to Elms Road and Elms Park; repairs and alterations to the boundary walls and entrance of Elms House; and associated infrastructure works and landscaping.

The applicant is again Rectory Homes Limited, this time together with FirstPort Retirement Property Services – The latter made the news back in January 2018, when residents at a retirement property in Bridport were reported to have been ‘trapped’ in their own homes for a week, when their lift broke, this just months after residents at retirement housing in Ipswich, managed by the same company, were reported to have been trapped in their homes four times in six months due to the lifts in their building breaking down. Again, in November 2017, the same thing happened at assisted living flats in Braintree, when some residents were apparently trapped in upper floor flats for a week.

Fire prosecution

The year before, FirstPort Retirement Property Services (operating as Peverel Ltd at the time, later rebranding) were reported as having pleaded guilty to four charges and fined thousands of pounds, after an 87-year-old perished in a fire at a residential home in Surrey, in 2011.

The new care home application

In a pre-planning consultation between the applicants with SODC, Planning Officer, Joan Desmond, she advised the applicants in a letter that: “…any plan must comply with the relevant parts of the Development Plan, the Core Strategy which was adopted in December 2012, the saved policies of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and The Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP). Any development which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused unless ‘material considerations’ indicate otherwise.”

She advised the applicantsThe Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP) (Policy HA4) identifies the land at the Elms to be allocated for residential development for no more than 45 homes; this latest plan is for 80 units – 79 apartments and two houses.

Pressure on local services

Joan Desmond also advised that: “Whilst there is some need identified to make provision for our aging population, depending on the number of occupiers from outside the local area, the proposal would place additional pressure on local services and makes no provision for CIL to mitigate this impact.” (Care Homes have become the ‘go-to’ option for developers as they are excused from providing any affordable housing element and are zero-rated with regard to developer contributions towards local infrastructure.)

Environmental benefits

On the positive side, she said: “In environmental terms, the proposal has some benefits in providing housing in a sustainable town centre location, providing for the long term management of veteran trees and provision for additional pedestrian and cycle access to the town centre. The proposal would also result in reduced traffic generation compared to the extant planning permission (Ed. granted some time ago for 45 homes – see LINK). Against this, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of The Elms.”

The Officer’s advise concludes: “The revised scheme would still conflict with Policy CSH4 of the Core Strategy and Policies H9 and H10 of the TNP. the revised NPPF ( National Planning Policy Framework) makes it clear that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan permission should not normally be granted.

‘Harm’ would outway public benefits

“The development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and would not amount to sustainable development in view of the environmental harm to heritage assets. I consider that the harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.”

You can see details of the application (including the full pre-planning advise) on SODC’s website by clicking this link: HERE