20/02/13….Thame makes local planning history

On 20/02/2013 At 12:00 am

THAME made planning history on Tuesday (19/02) when the first ever Public Hearing on a Neighbourhood Plan took place at the Town Hall.

Nigel McGurk, the Independent Examiner, said that all the people involved in developing the Neighbourhood Plan should be congratulated. ?It is a very comprehensive and thorough document?, he said, and without prejudice to his report on the Plan, he thought the level of detail was very impressive.

The Hearing was to allow the Examiner to hear oral evidence from invited participants to assist with his examination into whether the Neighbourhood Plan had met the Basic Conditions. Representatives from landowners, developers, residents and the Town Council were invited to answer questions.

Mr McGurk will now consider all of the evidence before producing his report on whether Thame?s Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions and proceeds to referendum.

The Examiner closed the Hearing by expressing his sincere thanks for the exemplary manner in which all participated and thanked everyone for sitting still.

The Examination last just under four hours and a selection of the spoken representations made at the hearing are made below.

Advocates of site F were asked by the Examiner about the sustainability and landscape aspects of their site. Mr Linnell, for Regeneration Thame, said that his group believed that site F could accommodate more than the 203 dwellings allocated, in fact 400 minimum, because in his view it is one of the most sustainable sites throughout Thame. ?We believe that to under deliver would mean that the conditions for sustainable growth in Thame would not be met,? he said. To further questioning about where the additional houses should come from, Mr Linnnell replied, from site C, because it is less sustainable because of its position to the South of the town against an industrial area. Site F, he said, would improve the approach to Thame from that direction and has good access to highways and public transport. ?We believe,? he said, ? that site C does have a part to play in the plan as a reserve site if the amalgamation of the two schools does not come to fruition.

The next speaker was Guy Bailey of Banner Homes, representing the interests of site D. The Examiner asked him why he would like to see more homes allocated to site D. His reply was: ?It (site D) has been shown to be nearer the town centre, particularly regarding the promotion of walking and cycling.?

The Examiner then asked him to confirm that he had suggested that site C does not meet the Basic Conditions and should be removed from the plan, and the houses allocated to site D, and to explain why he did not consider site C met the Basic Conditions.

Mr Bailey replied that priority should be given to transport and movement, and that it is a 20 minute walk to the town centre from site D, whereas from site C, it is longer. It was his contention that site D ?constantly performs better? and that there was ?no reasonable rationale or planning reason? why site D should not take these extra homes.

The next speaker was Adam Ross of Broadway, speaking on behalf of the interests for site C. He was asked to say how the site does meet the Basic Conditions. Mr Ross responded that the main criticism was one of transport and accessibility but that in his view most of site C is a 20 minute walk from the town centre, and that no objections had been raised from Oxfordshire County Council on either sustainability or transport.

The next speaker was Mr Preston, on behalf of SODC, talking about The Elms. The Examiner pointed out that this proposed development was for 45 dwellings, the whole within the Thame Conservation Area and in the grounds of a Listed building. Mr Preston said that there are other listed buildings, including The Poplars, The Barn and the War Memorial, that would be impacted.

The Examiner asked him to summarise his concerns, not about the principle but about the number of houses in the plan. Mr Preston said: ?This is a sensitive site which was added to the Conservation Area in 2006, along with the recreation ground. Its appearance and character is that of an open space and set in parkland, with a complex history of ownership. There was some potential for development he felt, but it was important to leave the sense of space and views, and to protect beeches and the Ha ha. ?A large scale development would have a harmful impact,? he concluded.

The Examiner asked Richard Peats, for English Heritage, whether he was content that the Elms development was not in danger of failing to ?preserve or enhance? the site as required by National Policy. He replied that good positioning should not harm the setting.

Following on from Mr Peats came the representatives for the Nash Partnership, promoting The Elms. They were told by the Examiner that he had received a significant number of objections to this proposed development, and asked why he thought it did meet the Basic Conditions.
Mr Peats responded that the site is sustainable in that it is close to services and amenoties, and that whilst he agreed it is a very important site, in his view it ?contributes very little to the town.? Whilst he thought heritage to be important, he thought ?significance? was open to interpretation. It was his understanding that the house was not originally built in park land, but for the views to the rear.

It was important, he felt, to consider the ?public benefit? from the development which would include new, public park land, enhancement of the access from the park to the High Street, the creation of walking and cycling routes, revealing local heritage and the renovation of the house itself.

The Examiner said that a number of representations had referred to accessibility in relation to cars and asked Mr Peats if he considered the plan met with the Basic Condition regarding Transportation. He (Mr Peats) replied that he considered The Elms to be the most sustainable of all the sites because it was close to the town centre. ?We would need to comply with parking standards i.e. Planning Policy 4,? he added.