Agenda item

Redevelopment to form 41 sheltered apartments for the elderly, including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

Lorraine Hillier arrived part way through the officer’s presentation and was therefore unable to debate or vote on this item.

The committee considered application P16/S3525/FUL to redevelop Thames Valley Police Station to form 41 sheltered apartments for the elderly, including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping on Greyhound Lane, 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.

Officer update: 30 further letters of support had been received regarding the health and welfare benefits of the development.

Graeme Markland and Bob Austin, representatives of Thame town council, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The focus of the officer’s report puts too much emphasis on comparing this application with the appeal scheme;

·         Highway safety concerns due to Greyhound Lane being narrow with a steep gradient and lack of pavement;

·         The site access is insufficiently wide for delivery vehicles, ambulances or refuse lorries;

·         Parking is inadequate and would cause displacement in the town;

·         Air quality has not been sufficiently addressed;

·         Shading concerns; and

·         Querying the legality of land ownership.

Simon Cater, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The site is a safe, secure, self-contained development with communal facilities and landscaped gardens;

·         According to the inspector’s assessment of the appeal scheme, the parking was deemed sufficient – this proposal has fewer apartments and therefore a higher parking allocation;

·         The conservation officer is satisfied with the scheme;

·         The communal amenity spaces are sufficient;

·         The developers can be on site quickly, potentially starting in May this year; and

·         Contributions will be put towards public transport.

Bridget Trueman and Angela Wilson, two local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Happy with the site being redeveloped into retirement flats, but have major concerns with parking and access;

·         A second access would be desirable; and

·         The Thame neighbourhood plan requests 40% affordable housing for all new developments, which this does not comply with.

Nigel Champken-Woods, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         This site is a gateway into Thame and the design should reflect this with frontages on the front of the premises;

·         The design is poor with confusing elevations;

·         Greyhound Lane is too steep and has no pavement, which will be dangerous for the elderly; and

·         There is not enough parking.

David Dodds, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         This is a tight development with insufficient amenity space and parking;

·         Access concerns;

·         Traffic backs up on Greyhound Lane especially on weekends, market days and Christmas; and

·         The scheme does not pay regard to the neighbourhood plan.

In response to objections and questions raised by committee members, the case officer reported that:

·         The recent inspector’s report deemed the refuse lorry stopping time would be sufficiently short to not cause issues;

·         Ambulances will not require a dedicated parking space as the proposal is for retirement living as opposed to a care home;

·         The layout meets BRE standards for light/shade;

·         The onus of the declaration of ownership is on the applicant, who had served notice on the landowner upon application;

·         The applicants have undertaken a viability assessment, which determined the amount that could be paid as a commuted sum in lieu of on-site provision of affordable housing;

·         Oxfordshire County Council highways have recognised the limited parking provision but deemed it acceptable due to the sustainable location;

·         The committee were advised to have regard to the inspector’s report as the application has followed soon after the appeal;

·         Policies have been carefully assessed and there are no technical objections.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. Whilst some members were minded to approve the scheme due to the lack of material planning reasons and technical objections to warrant refusing it, other members did not agree that the access was sufficient to allow emergency vehicles into the site; that parking was sufficient for the proposed number of apartments; that the design is in keeping with the conservation area of Thame; and that there is sufficient amenity space.

The development manager advised the committee on the following:

·         As the application followed on from an appeal members were advised to concentrate on issues raised by the inspector as to go outside these issues would put the council at risk;

·         The level of car parking had been endorsed by the county council and inspector;

·         In response to questions raised by committee, the development manager asked if increasing the lower age limit of prospective residents might aid support of the scheme; and

·         It is in the applicant’s interests to make the scheme work for future residents – Churchill Living are very experienced in making similar sites with limited parking provision work.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was declared lost on being put to the vote.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P16/S3525/FUL for the following reasons:

Insufficient Car parking provision

The proposal fails to provide an adequate level of off-street parking for the proposed use, which would lead to the displacement of parking associated with the proposed development onto nearby roads and public car parking facilities. This would have a detrimental impact on the vibrancy of Thame town centre. This is contrary to Policy T2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, Policy GA6 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and paragraphs 39 and 40 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  

Overdevelopment of the site – lack of amenity space

The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site which is demonstrated by the inadequacy of car parking provision and the lack of high quality and usable amenity space being provided for future occupiers. This is contrary to Policy CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, Policies D3 and T2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan and Policies GA6 and EDSQ28 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Harm to the character of the Conservation Area

Having regard to the bulk, height, massing and design of the proposal in this prominent location, the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Thame Conservation Area. Furthermore, the loss of the existing building itself would constitute an unattractive gap in the Conservation Area and without an approved replacement building, demolition would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This is contrary to Policies CON6 and CON7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, Policies CSTHA1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and Policies ESDQ16, ESDQ17, ESDQ18 and ESDQ20 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and Paragraphs 17 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Affordable Housing

In the absence of a completed S106 planning obligation, the proposal fails to provide affordable housing on-site or an appropriate commuted sum in accordance with Policy CSH3 of the adopted Core Strategy 2012. The proposal also fails to provide adequate on and off site infrastructure and services in accordance with Policy CSI1 South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.