The Elms Planning Applications Quick Objector

Introduction

About This Tool

This tool is designed to help you object quickly and concisely to the planning application for an Extra Care Home currently submitted by Rectory Homes at The Elms in the heart of Thame town centre.

You can choose what objections you would like to place. You can even add your own personal objections.

Here are the links to the current planning application available on the SODC website:

The erection of a 'Housing with Care' development (Use Class C2) and a communal residents centre (ref P18/S3596/FUL)

Have you already used this tool to object to other applications?

If so, you will need to submit your objections using this tool again. This is a completely different application to all previous ones submitted and therefore you need to object again.

How Long Will This Tool Take?

If you choose not to make any alterations to the objections then this could take you as little as 2 minutes to complete.

Need More Information?

We encourage you to try to understand this situation as fully as possible. It is a very complex and long running situation and we've tried to put together a large amount of information on our website, click here to go to the homepage to find out more. Alternatively contact us with any specific questions you may have.

Right... let's get started - just click the NEXT > button

Your details

Enter your personal details

In order to submit your objections, you need to provide your full details as follows. Fields marked * are required.

Full Name Address Line 1 Address Line 2 Address Line 3 Town County Postcode Your telephone number Your email address I do not have an email address

To be able to submit the objection we need an email address. Don't worry though, if you don't have an email address just tick this box and we'll provide one on your behalf. We will contact you if we receive anything important on your behalf.

Application for 78 Extra Care Home

Objections to the application for 78 Extra Care homes

This application is for the erection of an Extra Care Home (over 65s only) comprising 78 flats, houses and a communal residents centre. The application is for Class C2 which is the same commercial useage as hospitals and training centres. This is not residential use and there will be absolutely no affordable homes and only people aged over 65 will be eligible to lease the properties.

We have compiled a key set of accurate objections as follows.

Please feel free to add to these objections or edit them as you find appropriate.

I do not wish to object to this application. (not recommended)

You can add to or edit any of these objections

All the following objections relate to specific information in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP) section HA4 (unless specified otherwise).
								
DESIGN OBJECTIONS

1.  The Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP) clearly states that land at The Elms "...in any case, will provide no more than 45 dwellings" (HA4 Requirements).  This application is for 78 dwellings and is therefore nearly double the number.
2.  The application is for Class C2 useage which is not explicitly allowed by the TNP.  This is a business use and is inappropriate in such an area of Thame considering it's classification as a conservation area.
3.  The 'resident's centre' is purely a commercial building and should not even come under C2 useage (probably A3/A4) as it houses bar and restaurant facilities plus other leisure facilities.  This is completely inappropriate in this location and goes firmly against the allocation of this land in the TNP.
4.	The proposed layout of the three-storey 'parkside' houses are only metres off the boundary of Elms Park with balconies on 1st & 2nd floors overlooking the public land. This is unacceptable for several reasons:
a.	It will create a very urban look and feel to the park which is in a conservation area 
b.	Reduce the privacy and security of park users, including local children and those from the adjacent primary school.
c.	It will shrink the area used for ball games due to the risk of damaging the new development.
d.	Increase the number of access/exit points increasing the security risk for children in the area
5.	Location of housing in the proposed design contravenes the TNP: page 64 clearly states the development will be restricted to the "eastern and south-eastern side". However, the plans show  substantial housing in the south, south west and west of the site. English Heritage has reinforced this view in its most recent statement regarding the application for 37 houses where it states it 'cannot support the current plans'.
6.  TNP states that houses should be '2 to 2.5 storeys'.  Many of these buildings are clearly 3 storeys high and also have lift shafts protruding even higher above the roof line making then 3.5 storeys high.
7.  Section H9 of the TNP states that a mix of housing should be provided in all schemes more than 6 dwellings.  This is clearly a single type of house which is specifically restricted to over-65s.
8.  Absolutely no affordable housing is included in this plan.  SODC core strategy policy CSH3 states that a minimum of 40% affordable housing must be provided.  In this case, 0% affordable housing is provided.
9.  Whilst the footprint of this development may be similar to the application for 37 houses, the density of living is much higher.  Primarily demostrated by the comparison of 154 total bedrooms in this application compared to just 120 in the approved application which was already pared back following consultation.
10.  The application provides for just 65 car parking spaces for 78 dwellings (with the potential to have multiple cars per dwelling) plus approximately 10 staff on a daily basis.  This doesn't even take into account the extra services that will undoutedbly bring more traffic onto the site.
11. The application states that it will require 10 staff however only 5 car parking spaces are provided.  This is a bold assumption that half of all staff will not require a parking space.  Where will the extra parking requirement be accommodated? Probably not on the already over crowded Southern Road system.  Any increase in staff levels will only compound this issue.
12. pakring space for only 10 visitors is provided.  This means that only 8 resident houses could have a visitor arriving by car at any point in time.  We propose that this is wholly inadequate for such a facility.
13.  Note that the applications have already eradicated a substantial number of car parking spaces that currently exist and are in use daily on Elms Road.  The application does not provide any solution to where these cars may park and thus has created a significant knock-on effect for the existing residents.

ACCESS & TRAFFIC CONGESTION OBJECTIONS

13.	There are significant traffic issues with this proposal.  All traffic is to enter The Elms using a single entrance on Elms Road. This means that all vehicles must use the already congested access roads of Southern Road, Rooks Lane or Nelson Street.  
14.	Southern Road, Nelson St and Elms Road are main thoroughfares for many pedestrians including the elderly and school children who attend John Hampden, Barley Hill, St Joseph’s and Lord William's Schools and pre-schools eg Red Kite Centre, First Steps, the Attic and John Hampden. 
15.	There are sheltered homes on Windmill Road, Windmill Place and Sharman Beer Court where residents often use mobility vehicles. They will be severely affected by increased traffic, the narrowing of pavements and the extra exit point on Elms Road, forcing them onto the road. 
16.	Nelson Street is effectively a single track road and cars are constantly mounting the pavement to pass each other at speed.  This will only become more commonplace with more traffic on the road.
17.	Planning in recent years has been rejected by the TTC due to predicted increase in traffic: the development of 7 houses at the Old Creamery on Southern Road was rejected by TTC as it would create too much traffic. Furthermore, the development on the old site of Thame Football Club (Windmill Road) included a substantial amount of elderly residential property instead of standard housing, specifically to reduce the traffic being created by the development there.
Using the same criteria, the Elms Development plans should be denied as they will significantly increase the traffic congestion and danger.
19.	The construction traffic generated by the Development in the immediate roads and the wider road systems would be unacceptably dangerous, disruptive to the local community, and damaging to the current roads. The Windmill Road development is a recent example of how roads and property can be damaged by construction traffic. These roads were not designed to take such large vehicles.
20.	The HGVs will have to access the town from the ring road using the High Street (upper and lower), Park Street and East Street.  All of these roads are incredibly congested, lined with parked cars and present dangerous conditions for pedestrians including many children from local schools.
There is no solution to this issue.  The road system of Thame is unsuitable for such traffic.
21.	In general, the roads and the road system of Thame town center are unsuitable for the increase in residential, service and construction traffic and therefore this site is not viable.
22. The travel plan document provides no substantive initiatives to deal with travel with suggestions.
Comments about car shares, walking and promoting public transport for residents who are by
definition to a degree infirm in order to live in the location is lip service to the issues that will arise.
23. The travel assessment is at odds with the Travel Plan proposal and application. On the one hand the proposal has car parking of 65 spaces for all residents, staff, visitors and service vehicles. The travel plan is also encouraging residents to use delivery services. However the transport assessment expects less transport than more.

CONSERVATION AREA OBJECTIONS

23. Please see also point 4 – English Heritage clearly states their opposition to any building in the south of the Elms.  They have also previously described ANY development of The Elms as 'deeply damaging' however this letter has inexplicably been disregarded.  I hope you will take this into account as is only right.
24.	The application seeks the removal of a significant number of mature specimen trees which are an integral part of the tree scape visible from without and within the site and which place the site in its historical context.  This clearly contravenes the TNP as it clearly states that any development should:
a.	"Ensure the retention of open land and mature trees in such a way as to maintain an appropriate setting for The Elms"
b.	"Retain trees around the boundary and within the site".
25.	Opposition to developing this site has gone back much further than the TNP. In 2002, SODC wanted to protect it as an open space. Its THA3 policy specifically stated about the Elms: ‘This site is one of the few open spaces in the centre of Thame and it is considered to be important to retain and to maintain its rural character.” Again in 2006, it was deliberately added to the conservation area to further protect it.

Confirmation

Almost complete...

This tool will send an email to the South Oxfordshire District Council planning office on your behalf. Once you click 'Submit Objection' the email will be sent.

We will store your submission for verification by the relevant authority only. We will not sell or disclose your personal details to any 3rd party. We will add your email address to our own mailing list and from time to time send you updates. You can unsubscribe from these emails at any time using the link in the email itself.

Check this box to confirm that you are happy to send this objection to the relevant parties.

Save The Elms

A Community Against Development of The Elms in Thame