20 January 2026 – Minutes
THAME TOWN COUNCIL
Minutes of the Meeting of Thame Town Council held on 20 January 2026 at 6:30pm in the Upper Chamber, Town Hall, Thame.
Present:
Cllrs M Baines, D Bretherton, P Cowell, A Dite, H Dollman, D Dodds, M Dyer, A Gilbert (Town Mayor), C Jones, S McGarry, H Richards, P Swan, A Wainwright and W Wilde
Officers
G Markland, Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer
L Fuller, Communications Manager
K Slater, RFO & Corporate Services Manager
J Doherty, Committee Services Officer
There were 12 members of the public in attendance.
1) Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Emery (personal) and Dawson (personal).
RESOLVED:
i) To accept the apologies and reason given from Cllrs Emery (personal), Dawson (personal).
2) Declarations of Interest and Dispensations
Cllr Bretherton declared an interest in item 5 as SODC Cllr and would abstain from voting on this item.
3) Civic Announcements
Noted the report detailing activities carried out by the Town Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
4) Public Participation and Public Questions
Moved to discuss item 5.
Representatives from Lidl addressed the Town Council regarding Agenda Item 5 Planning Application P25/S3492/FUL – 47 Aylesbury Road.
5) Planning Application P25/S3492/FUL – 47 Aylesbury Road
Cllr Richards arrived during this item.
Representatives from Lidl addressed the Town Council to support the application and to provide an update on progress. The majority of the formal consultee responses have been received and additional information, and/or minor changes have been requested, which is normal for first round of planning applications.
Lidl highlighted the outstanding requirements and additional information required by various consultees and summarised the results from their public consultation, which showed a strong level of support to the scheme.
Lidl request that it is considered that the principle be supported, as they believe that this is reflected within the recommended response i.e. Thame Town Council supports the principle of the application and location subject to the applicant satisfying the various consultees. Lidl thanked the Town Council for the opportunity to speak and welcomed questions.
Cllr questions raised:
Cllrs noted that the biggest objection the County Council raised regarded highways issue, with the right-hand turn and the neighbouring office, the headquarters of Travelodge at Sleepy Hollow. Cllrs enquired what changes are being considered to overcome the objections. Response from Lidl: further modelling work regarding the alignment of the junction and further evidence is required to satisfy comments. Regarding the right-hand turn, as requested a Road Safety Audit will be provided to ensure that the proposal is safe.
Cllrs raised concern regarding flood risk and flood mitigation strategy. Due to the location of the site, next to River Thame with already high levels of flooding, the proposed changes cover reducing the sealed surface area on site and providing a swale. Is that adequate protection for mitigation not just now, but for future protection? The climate change modelling moved the flood risk boundary further into the site. Lidl response: Drainage consultants are currently working through comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Environmental Agency and District Drainage Team. While there was a pre-agreed drainage strategy with the LLFA before submission, further details are required including modelling and reviewing a cross section of the proposed sustainable drainage. Lidl are looking to increase the permeability area and provide the swale, which will be a huge improvement for the site, and improve the area with the additional planting of 30 new trees. Lidl feels that the proposal will be acceptable and that no real concerns have been raised with the principle of their mitigation strategy. Lidl confirmed part of the site is within Flood Zone 3 and a small part of the proposed store is within Flood Zone 2.
Cllrs further queried flooding, understanding from flood organisation comments that the building specified in the plan is in Zone 2 and there were comments that this should be kept within Zone 1. Lidl response: The back half of building is in Zone 2, from a planning perspective build within Flood Zone 2 is acceptable, with appropriate measures taken. The additional information on levels and details are required by the Drainage officer, Environment Agency and LLFA. All require confirmation that these proposals will work within the area, Lidl noted that the existing warehouse building is in Flood Zone 2 with lots of hardstanding in Zone 2 and 3. They do not believe flood risk will be made worse.
Cllrs questioned whether additional recommended measures would be implemented? Lidl commented that regarding flood resilience of the building, Lidl’s standard specification details electrics at a higher level and appropriate floor heights will be specified for this site. Lidl have a number of stores in flood zones with some in Flood Zone 3. This is one of the items the Environment Agency has requested, other items include a flood emergency plan which Lidl have experience of producing elsewhere, and can provide the relevant information.
Cllrs raised a question regarding the public demand in favour of lower cost supermarket option in Thame to serve residents of Thame as in the Town Centre and queried why Lidl have not waited for Cattle Market site or reviewed other sites in Thame. Lidl responded that they have desired to be in Thame for some time. Plans for the CPM site have been in progress for a while and the Cattle Market site and other sites have been considered. Extensive work has been carried out over the years; however, the Cattle Market site is not available and not able to deliver a proposal for this site. Lidl now own the site at CPM, and this is positioned to be delivered soon.
With no further Cllr questions for Lidl. Cllrs received the NPCO presentation and report regarding the scheme, which detailed the recommendation for Thame Town Council to support the scheme in principle; but that the Council should object to the initial planning application for reasons discussed in depth.
Thame Town Council has long‑standing evidence that the town needs a single‑format food store, including that from a 2015 Town Council‑commissioned study. The principle is supported and the Thame Neighbourhood Plan 2 (TNP2) allocates the Cattle Market site for this purpose. The proposed site at 47 Aylesbury Road is out‑of‑centre. The aim should be to fit food stores within the primary shopping area defined within the High Street and North Street. The nationally required sequential test had been carried out; the Cattle Market site was considered an unrealistic option as its availability is unknown. As a result, the NPCO considers the proposed site has passed the sequential test, subject to the District Council’s confirmation.
In reviewing the retail impact assessment, it was noted that the applicant must assess impacts on the town centre’s primary shopping area and its businesses. The proposed supermarket is out of town, so this requirement cannot be overlooked. Lidl’s assessment uses a 7‑minute drive‑time catchment of 22,700 people, but the actual catchment from the District’s Retail Study is over 46,000, including surrounding villages such as Haddenham, Chinnor, Long Crendon and Wheatley.
While Lidl is expected to be popular, the concern is the impact on the high street and independent shops rather than on other supermarkets. The Town Council should, therefore, recommend objecting unless the retail impact test is passed, as the catchment definition and supporting data appear incorrect and the applicant has not met this requirement. The District Council must also be satisfied. Lidl estimates a turnover of £10.25m for a store of this size, but Lidl stores regularly exceed their predicted turnover, so accurate data is essential. The Town Council must act with due diligence to protect the town centre.
Concerns were raised about potential employment loss; further evidence of the site having been marketed for employment uses is awaited before any comment can be made on this matter. Again, this would be subject to the District Council’s confirmation.
Transport and traffic impacts remain a key issue, and safe access to the site must be ensured. Significant flooding concerns were noted, with the Environment Agency highlighting risks related to floodwater, surface water and groundwater on this challenging site.
Public responses sent to the District Council’s planning portal show strong support, with 114 comments submitted (73 from Thame residents).
The NPCO recommended that Thame Town Council object at this stage. Although the sequential test has been passed, several required assessments and technical documents remain outstanding. An objection will ensure the Council remains a statutory consultee and can review amended plans, including matters such as the relocated bus stop, retail impact evidence and flood risk.
Cllrs highlighted issues including severe traffic pressures on Aylesbury Road and the A418 roundabout, opportunities to improve cycling, and consideration to the newly adopted LCWIP, walking routes to the site, and potential heritage considerations. Sustainability concerns were raised regarding demolition of the existing office building, though solar provision was welcomed. Cllrs wished to continue constructive engagement with Lidl to secure a design that meets local needs and reflects the character of Thame.
The NPCO confirmed that highways evidence requested at pre‑application is still outstanding and may influence future recommendations. Archaeological input will also be required during the development.
If supported, active travel improvements, including enhancements through Lea Park and at Bell Lane junction, could be manged through a S278 agreement.
It was noted that the Neighbourhood Plan allocation at the Cattle Market site is not part of this application. While the principle of a supermarket is long‑established and supported, significant unresolved issues remain around flooding, transport and design. The NPCO highlighted that if the Council were to support the application now, Thame Town Council would risk losing consultee status, and unable to influence design amendments or mitigation measures.
Questions were raised about CIL/Section 106 contributions; applicability will need clarification from the case officer.
To protect the town centre, ensure safety and address outstanding technical matters, the recommendation from the NPCO is to object on the identified grounds, enabling continued consultation and influence over future revisions.
Majority of members agreed to respond with the following resolution.
RESOLVED that:
Thame Town Council supports the proposed development, subject to the following matters being addressed to the satisfaction of the District Council:
a) That the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of there being no market interest in the application site, in line with 2035 Local Plan Policy EMP3;
b) That the District Council finds the scheme’s impact on Thame Town Centre acceptable;
c) That the applicant can demonstrate the site, visitors and the immediate and surrounding area will be safe from the risk of flooding as a result of the proposal as required by Thame Neighbourhood Plan Policy NEF1 and Local Plan Policy EP4;
d) That given its location the potential for improving access to the site from more distant housing be considered;
e) That the applicant can demonstrate the proposal would be safe in highway terms, as required by Local Plan Policy TRANS5.
The Town Council notes that improvements to pedestrian access at the Bell Lane / Aylesbury Road roundabout and the provision of a dedicated cycle path could encourage active travel to the site. Opportunities for connections to the proposed Thame – Haddenham Greenway should also be considered. The Town Council wishes to be remain a consultee for any proposed amendments to the scheme.
6) Budget and Precept for 2026-2027
The report outlining expenditure and savings was noted. Two key issues; no allowance has been made for election costs, which may reach £38k, only £21k budgeted, and pension fund contribution rates are under consultation until the end of January. Sufficient reserves.
Following work by Officers and the Budget Working Group, the 2026/27 budget reflects a 6.99% increase on last year’s budget. For a Band D household, this equates to an extra 29p per week, or £14.94 per year.
It was noted that many properties in Thame have had substantial extensions, with some nearly doubling in size. If Council Tax bandings were reviewed, Thame Town Council would likely receive significantly more funding from South Oxfordshire District Council. Although Council Tax is based on 1976 valuations, it is the District Valuer’s Office that sets and updates the banding.
Cllrs expressed concern about the budget, noting that this is the third year running which the Precept has increased and is in advance of CPI inflation. Concerned that the Local Government reform over the next few years may increase a demand on services, with new responsibilities on the Town Council without the requisite funding for the additional services.
Cllr queried why the percentage increase is more than double this year. Officer advised that this budget has several one-off costs. Ongoing contributions continue for the Youth Worker, Citizens Advice, the Senior Friendship Centre and the Red Kite Family Centre. The Council is upgrading its accounting software, costing £7.5k but saving £10k by bringing more work in‑house.
The Officer reported that monthly overheads are approximately £85k, and legally the Council must hold at least £240k in reserves, with six months’ reserves being the healthy benchmark. Earmarked reserves are reviewed regularly by the Corporate Governance Committee, and funds not required to be ringfenced (e.g., for professional fees, training, legal costs) can be reallocated if needed, including to cover potential election costs. CIL funds, also held in earmarked reserves, will be used for the required Depot roof repairs which needs to be undertaken as the outside services run from the Depot.
Discussed undertaking further benchmarking to compare staffing and expenditure. The Officer noted that benchmarking has been done, but Thame Town Council has no income‑generating facilities, making comparisons difficult with councils that run venues like leisure centres or theatres and can offset income against their Precept. Officers will review.
Noting that future income may change through bio-diversity net gain or potential land acquisitions.
Cllr noted that from working closely with the accounting team during the accounting system review, the team work hard. Bringing more accountancy work in‑house will reduce the reliance on external support and save £10k in fees. While there is always room for improvement, the Budget and Precept reports have been properly reviewed at Committee level. The work is considered the best achievable at this time, and Cllrs with relevant expertise are encouraged to contribute during committee stages.
Majority of members supported the Officers recommendation.
RESOLVED:
a) To approve the budget for 2026-27.
b) To agree that £1,185,865 (6.99% increase) be raised for the precept for 2026-27
7) Reports from County Councillors
The report was noted.
Clarification required regarding free travel servicing the park and ride, questioned if free travel includes the Oxford Tube service. CSO will enquire with Cllr Gregory.
Cllr queried timescale for gulley’s clearance; believe scheduled for March 2026. CSO to check.
Thame – Haddenham Greenway. Cllr Gilbert issued an update regarding a petition being presented to 10 Downing Street on 3 February 2026 by our MP Freddie van Mierlo.
Fire Service consultation was discussed at the last council meeting on 2 December 2025 it was agreed to object to proposed cuts, it was requested that Thame’s County Cllrs be asked to support the Town Council’s objection as they will be representing Thame. Officer to request. Cllrs noted that the proposed 50% reduction on the fire service is important to address. Noting that there is a meeting with our MP Freddie van Mierlo; Cllrs who wish to attend to contact Cllr Gilbert.
8) Reports from South Oxfordshire District Councillors
The report was noted.
Noted personnel changes new CEO, David Hill appointed. Cllr Maggie Filipova-Rivers elected as new Leader at South Oxfordshire District Council. Head of Planning retiring in March 2026.
Noted no South Oxfordshire District Council elections in May 2026. Next elections May 2027.
9) Nelson Street, Proposed Experimental One-Way Restriction
Report was received and supported by Thame Town Council. Noted that this is long awaited.
RESOLVED to:
i) To agree to support the Proposed Experimental One-Way Restriction on Nelson Street as specified by Oxfordshire County Council.
10) Annual Town Meeting
The report was noted. Following discussion, it was agreed that the Annual Town Meeting should include an update on the Community Youth Centre while remaining primarily an open forum. The forum will address pre‑submitted questions as well as questions from residents on the night, allowing them to guide the discussion.
All questions should receive a response, either during the meeting or afterwards.
Officer confirmed the Upper Chamber capacity limits: 80 seated or 120 standing.
11) Schedule of Meetings 2026-2027
Report and Schedule of Meetings for 2026/2027 received and agreed upon.
RESOLVED:
i) To approve the Schedule of Meetings for 2026-27.
12) Community & Youth Centre – Application for Lottery Grant
Update noted as per agenda.
13) Members Questions (under Standing Order 11)
No questions.
14) Minutes
The Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 December 2025 were received.
RESOLVED that:
i) The minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2025 are confirmed as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.
15) Planning Committee
The minutes of the meetings held on 16 December 2025 noted. Minutes from the planning committee meeting on 13 January 2026 will be available at the next Full Council meeting.
16) Personnel Committee
The minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2026 were noted.
The meeting concluded at 8.22pm.
Signed ………………………
Chair, 3 February 2026