THAME Town Council has, for the second time, rejected plans for a large housing development on the old Rycotewood College site in the town.
Feelings were running high at a meeting of the council’s Planning Committee on Tuesday evening, the public gallery being practically full, with two speakers, and several letters expressing concerns about the demolition of part of the college building and the conversion of the old, Listed Workhouse.
The views of Bob Champion, of Southern Road, Thame, were typical of many of the correspondents and councillors at the meeting when he said: “There is an acute shortage of public meeting and exhibition space in the town, facilities that Rycotewood previously provided. Bearing in mind the views of the recent planning enquiry, there is a clear expectation that community facilities will be re-provided. I understand that the developer will be making a financial contribution but it does not encompass previous fascilities on the site or the real needs of Thame.
“Also, Policy THA4 requires a planning brief of the site prior to the submission of plans. There has been no public consultation before these plans were made.
“This is a poor quality development that fails to recognise the needs of Thame.”
The other member of the public to speak was Thame resident, Sean Moore who told the meeting:”Several sites have suddenly become available for development in the town, for instance, the football ground and the Market House. This is quite an historic moment for Thame. It is time for the town to take stock and look to the future.”
One letter stated that the proposal constituted “a very large increase in an area with poor access,” and amounted to “a new village in a Conservation Area.”
A second letter, from Rachel Moore of Priest End, pointed out that the college was originally given by a benefactor, for community use. She also highlighted the current problems of insufficient dentists, over-subscribed schools and the need for a new health centre.
A J. Elliott, in another letter, mentioned that such an influx of people could put more pressure on land drainage in the area which is constantly breaking down. P. Thomas’s letter also highlighted drainage, stating that the run-off would mostly go into Cuttle Brook “which already floods frequently” and feared the potential for further flooding problems.
A letter from a resident in the Old Plough House, Priest End, listed the following concerns:
Density inappropriate, development out of character with the area, there could be 200 children on the site with no recreational facilities, the proposed, new pedestrian access would encourage youngsters to congregate and the extra traffic generated by the development would cause chaos. A suggestion was made that the old Workhouse building could be converted into a library.
A letter from Val Jonas included concerns about the removal of important trees, a lack of soft landscaping, insufficient parking provision or bin storage and no contribution to public art. A letter from Margie Barbour highlighted the loss of space for film workshops that the college had provided.
Cath Gaulter-Carter wrote of the lack of bicycle parking in the plans.
The Chair of the Planning Committee, Cllr Don Butler, said that it was his understanding that the Local Plan allowed for “Residential and/or community use of the site.
County Cllr Nick Carter told the meeting that the county council, whose interests in the development relate to a library and Highways, did have a pre-planning meeting with Berkeley Homes during which infrastructure needs were identified but that no agreement has yet been reached. Cllr Carter said that adult and community learning in Thame is of concern to the county council and that the district council will take into consideration the county council’s requirements when it considers the planning application.
The Deputy Mayor, Cllr David Dodds said: “On the face of it, this plan looks better than the previous one; the pictures look quite pretty but the most fundamental problem is the failure to come forward with a planning brief. I am annoyed that Berkeley Homes did not have the courtesy to discuss the site with the town council in a formal way and listen to our hopes and aspirations and those of neighbours and the whole town, for this site.”
Cllr Butler added: “Offers to contribute to community facilities in the town is not the same as providing such facilities on the site.”
The committee voted to recommend refusal of the plans on the grounds of a) absense of community facilites, b) Insufficient car parking, and c) Over dense.
Leave a Reply