Agenda item

The erection of an extra care development (Use Class C2) of 66 units; 3 guest rooms; a communal resident's centre with staff facilities; provision of car, cycle and mobility scooter parking; the creation of new public open space; the provision of new pedestrian/cycle links from Upper High Street to Elms Road and Elms Park; and associated infrastructure works and landscaping.

Councillors David Bretherton and Kate Gregory each declared an interest in respect of this application; they had, in their capacity as Thame Town councillors, voted in a decision relating to this site. They intended to speak on this application as ward councillors, but would not vote on the item.

The committee considered application P20/S0928/FUL for the erection of an extra care development (Use Class C2) of 66 units; 3 guest rooms; a communal residents centre with staff facilities; provision of car, cycle and mobility scooter parking; the creation of new public open space; the provision of new pedestrian/cycle links from Upper High Street to Elms Road and Elms Park; and associated infrastructure works and landscaping on land at Land at The Elms, Upper High Street, Thame.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

The planning officer reminded the committee that at its meeting on 21 October 2020 it had deferred consideration of this application, as it required further information on the calculations for the social housing element of the proposal, particularly offsite provision, the calculation formula and commuted sums. On 14 December 2020 members of the committee had received training on social housing and the national policy context.

The planning officer explained that commuted sums were a rare occurrence, as they were only paid in very specific circumstances and that off-site social housing was provided under a tight specification.  Also, a commuted sum figure represented the gap between the cost of provision by a registered provider and the full market value.

The committee’s attention was brought to a correction regarding the application documentation; owing to an architect’s drafting error, the original report to the committee had omitted lift shaft details.  This had been rectified in the latest report, which contained drawings.  Lifts would not be viewable on the outside of the building.

During the debate on 21 October 2020, the matter of the unit sizes in comparison to the extant permission arose, as did the role of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan in the determination of this application. Some members of the committee had suggested that some of the proposed units were too large and had remarked that Thame Neighbourhood Plan policy HA4 stipulated 45 mixed dwellings on this site, but that the application proposed 66, with no affordable housing element.  The planning officer reported that  policy HA4 did not mention social housing at all. Also, a table of the unit sizes was provided at paragraph 13 of the revised report. The planning officer reported that 66 units would result in a policy requirement for 26.4 affordable units, as 40% of the total development. The council’s affordable housing team leader had confirmed that the scheme had not attracted interest from Registered Providers, and would be complex in terms of management and associated charges. . The principle of an off-site financial contribution in lieu of the affordable housing on site was therefore considered appropriate in this case. Also, the planning inspector had dismissed the appeal on the previous scheme on the grounds of a lack of affordable housing on – site.

The committee was advised of the employment of a formula devised by BNP Paribas in respect of commuted sums. Full details were provided in the updated report under paragraph 10 and 11. Application of the formula had resulted in a sum of £2,939,772 and not £2,969,445, as previously stated. This reduction was due to the formula being applied differently on the previous occasion.

The revised report provided full details on the present policy framework. The senior planning officer summarised this advice by stating that the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035, adopted by the Council on 10 December 2020, now carried full weight and represented the most up to date development plan to be considered in the determination of this application, along with all the relevant material considerations. An additional factor was new policy H13, which supported social housing provision, and encouraged it. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment recognised the need of the elderly population to purchase retirement housing.

In response to a question from the committee regarding sleeping quarters for staff, the planning officer confirmed that although staff would not have such dedicated provision, the scheme would allow for overnight stays. In response to a question regarding the subsequent saleability of the units in the future, the planning officer confirmed that this was not a material planning consideration.

Mr. Graeme Markland, a representative of Thame Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Linda Emery, a representative of Thame Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Adrian Reynolds, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Mark Sitch, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Responding to a question from the committee, the planning officer reported that management charges would be payable by residents of this extra care scheme, but that the s106 agreement would control the basic level of care required to qualify.  The residents would be involved in the management company and would therefore be in a position to control prices.

The planning officer’s concluding remarks on the application were that the scheme would be fully integrated into the public realm with public access to the grounds and parkland.  The size and massing of the proposal was similar to the original scheme proposed. Reliable evidence had now been provided which demonstrated that registered social housing - providers were not interested in delivering on-site provision. This was the only site presently contributing to projects in Thame. The overall public benefit of the proposed development outweighed any effect upon a nearby listed building.

Some members of the committee remained concerned that the proposal was contrary to the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, that it lacked social housing on site and that there was already sufficient care home provision in Thame.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared lost on being put to the vote; voting numbers for and against the motion were equal and the chair’s casting vote was employed.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote; voting numbers for and against the motion were equal and the chair’s casting vote was employed.

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of planning to grant planning permission for application P20/S0298/FUL, subject to the following conditions;

a) The prior completion of a Section 106 agreement with the County Council

and District Council to secure financial contributions as listed above; and

b) the schedule of conditions contained in Appendix 6.