3 February 2026 – Minutes

THAME TOWN COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of Thame Town Council held on 3 February 2026 at 7:30pm in the Upper Chamber, Town Hall, Thame.

Present:

Cllrs M Baines, D Bretherton, P Cowell, D Dawson (Deputy Mayor), 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

M Sturdy, Town Clerk
G Markland, Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer
J Doherty, Committee Services Officer

 

1)         Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Emery (personal).

RESOLVED:

i)        To accept the apologies and reason given from Cllr Emery (personal).

 

2)            Declarations of Interest and Dispensations

Cllr Bretherton declared an interest in items 5,6 and 7 as SODC Cllr and would abstain from voting on items.

 

3)         Civic Announcements

Cllr Gilbert updated Full Council following presenting a petition to 10 Downing Street on 3 February 2026 for the Thame to Haddenham Greenway.  Cllr Gilbert attended with Cllr Gregory, Greg Smith MP, Freddie van Mierlo MP and local campaigners Sarah Green and Cathy Gaulter-Carter. The petition was signed by over 3,500 residents. 

 

4)         Public Participation and Public Questions

There were no applications to address the Council.
There were no questions put to the Council.

 

5)        Planning Application P25/S4009/D – 47 Aylesbury Road

Members considered planning application P25/S4009/D.  Proposed demolition of buildings at 47 Aylesbury Road.

The NPCO presented the report to members, this application is a request for the District Council to determine if it will require prior approval for the proposed method of demolition (and any site restoration) for the two buildings under the permitted development allowed by Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

This demolition can be carried out under permitted development; Thame Town Council are unable to object or support and can only provide commentary.  Thame Town Council should consider how the demolition will impact Thame matters such as residential amenity and biodiversity.  The application lacks some details, it is for example unknown if the substation will be removed or how the hardstanding will be broken up.  Traffic movements are a consideration as access is proposed in both directions from the site, i.e., southwards through Thame as well as north onto the A418.  There is concern that the noise from the demolition, concrete crushing and associated works will have a considerable impact on residents and it is noted the District’s Environmental Protection team are seeking details on noise and dust etc. to be managed through a pre-commencement condition.

Cllrs raised concern regarding the noise.  The noise during the demolition of the former DAF site had been extremely loud, even at a distance and concern was expressed over how similar demolition works would affect residents. 

It was noted that the demolition of this energy efficient building is not in keeping with Thame’s approach to sustainability.

Cllrs highlighted concern with detail contained within the demolition report, written by a company contracted by Lidl.  The company and the applicant would both have been aware of the Condition Survey Report but have disregarded it and have made a contradictory statement.  The applicant appears not to be acting either honestly or consistently, and Cllrs expressed concern for the future progress of the development.

Concerns were expressed at the proposal to demolish the buildings ahead of providing an alternative bat roost for those found during surveys.  Appropriate provision along with protection of the western part of the site was a requirement, as was the need to provide a net gain in biodiversity, especially as a loss of habitat was demonstrated.  The NPCO noted the replacement bat roost and biodiversity net gain was being considered through the application for the proposed Lidl store yet there was no means to simply object to the permitted development on the grounds this had yet to be resolved.  Regarding existing habitats, the Forestry Officer believes that there is opportunity to undertake demolition works around the trees, with suitable protection and conditions in place.

Cllr queried if Lidl have met criteria for SODC for the main planning application; the full 12-months marketing assessment remains outstanding yet the date for demolition is scheduled to take place in June.  The NPCO reported the necessary full years’ worth of marketing data and supporting evidence has yet to be submitted.  While the condition report shows a very good modern building, in good condition the Town Council can only comment on the methodology of demolition for the buildings.  Local Plan Policy EMP3 protects the land, not the building and the land use would remain unchanged until a new permission for another use is granted and relevant work onsite had been judged as having begun.

Cllrs expressed concern regarding the demolition of the substation and if there were proposals for its replacement.  The NPCO reported it is not certain the substation would be demolished, as while it was included within the red line area earmarked for complete demolition it was not discussed within the submitted demolition management plan.  Its loss was, therefore, implied.

It was questioned if Thame could be left with a demolished, empty site should there be issues or problems with the main planning application.  The NPCO confirmed it was a possibility.  Cllrs then discussed the loss of employment, as the building provides space for around 250 office-based staff and Lidl would provide around 40.  The NPCO observed that the risk to the Town to have lost this employment site is concerning and noted there are currently 5 businesses operating from the site.

Cllr queried if the planning applications can be linked so the loss could not occur until a replacement scheme was in place.  NPCO reported that as the demolition of the buildings is allowable through permitted development, commentary would be confined around the District agreeing the methodology for the demolition.  It was noted the applicant had proposed a 14-week timeline for the demolition work to be carried out.

It was noted that this site had previously had consent for conversion to flats and it seemed the Town Council would not be able to prevent its loss from employment use.  It was noted that there would be an uplift in ecology and the Town Council should not be unduly worried about habitat loss, aside from concerns regarding the current habitat used by bats.

Agreed to respond with Officer recommendation.

RESOLVED that:

Thame Town Council have concerns regarding matters of neighbouring amenity, highways and ecology.

Neighbouring amenity and highways:

  1. It is not detailed how all demolition will be undertaken, e.g. for the sizeable hardstanding areas and the electric substation adjacent to number 41 Aylesbury Road.
  2. There are no indications of likely noise levels that could be arise from demolition, processing, loading and the on-site crushing of waste materials.
  3. No details have been given regarding the likely number of daily vehicle movements associated with the delivery of skips and the collection of waste.
  4. As currently detailed it would be allowable for a vehicle to reverse from the site onto the local highway network without a banksman.
  5. No details have been given regarding the routing of HGVs delivering skips or collecting waste.
  6. No details are given for how or when the proposed hoarding on the site’s boundaries will be removed.

Ecology:

  1. The applicant’s accompanying Preliminary Ecological Assessment predates bat surveys undertaken as part of application P25/S3493/FUL, which discovered the presence of a bat maternity roost within the main office building.

The Town Council deeply regrets that the demolition of employment buildings that are demonstrably sound, energy efficient and the subject of recent refurbishment can be permitted ahead of the securing of a viable replacement or alternative use for the site.

 

6)        Planning Application P25/S3631/O – Land to the east of Howland Road (B4012) and south of Kingsey Road

Members considered planning application P25/S3631/O.  Outline planning application (all matters reserved except for access) for the construction of up to 70 age-restricted dwellings (over 55’s) (Use Class C3), including 40% affordable housing and communal facilities, together with vehicular access off Kingsey Road and pedestrian access off Howland Road, landscaping and all enabling ancillary works, including off-site highway improvements related to new pedestrian footways, pedestrian crossing and bus stops.

The NPCO highlighted the planning application, and reviewed how this would affect Thame, and the landscape.  The design is not satisfactory; this development will be isolated due to the constrained site access and location.  The District’s Landscape Officer has raised similar concerns regarding impact on the landscape.

Concerns were raised regarding the pedestrian access to the site with residents requiring vehicles to access local facilities and the Town Centre.  The Thame Neighbourhood Plan’s Objectives and policies encourage integration of developments within the community, a policy mirrored by the District’s Local Plan and one encouraged by the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED that:

i)    Thame Town Council objects to this application.

  1. In proposing development in the proposed location, the proposal is contrary to the identified Objectives of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP2).
  2. The development is proposed on non-allocated land outside the built-up area of Thame and would be contrary to Policy H1 of the 2035 Local Plan (2035 LP).
  3. In failing to respond positively to the character and setting within which it is located, the proposed development is contrary to TNP2 Policy CPQ1.
  4. In failing to protect and enhance trees, field boundaries and the landscape setting of Thame, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV1 of the 2035 LP.
  5. In failing to reflect the positive features that make up the character of the local area and physically / visually enhance and complement the surroundings the proposal would be contrary to Policy DES2 of the 2035 LP.
  6. In pushing green infrastructure including common amenity space to the edge of the development the proposal is contrary to TNP2 Policy SF03, which requires open space to be integrated within the development.
  7. The development fails to integrate its proposal for specialist housing within the wider neighbourhood and fails to demonstrate how the scheme would be compliant with the HAPPI principles, both required by TNP2 Policy GDH2.
  8. The proposed use of a private minibus to facilitate travel to local facilities would remove an opportunity for the type of social interaction promoted by Paragraph 96 of the National Planning Policy Framework and undermine a key objective of TNP2 in failing to ensure that development contributes to achieving integrated communities.
  9. The proposed footpath improvements are relatively limited and it has not been demonstrated that routes will be attractive for use and will lead to safe and convenient routes into the existing street networks. It is not clear if the routes will be able to be used by those using mobility aids.  The proposals risk being contrary to TNP2 Policies CPQ6 and GAAT1.
  10. The Town Centre aside, no other facility referenced through Policy GDH1 would be within the recommended walking distances listed within TNP2 Table 2. This does not represent the “good access to services and facilities” required by Policy GDH1.

 

7)       Planning Application P26/S0071/FUL – West Coast Haulage Land off Rycote Lane near Thame

Members considered planning application P26/S0071/FUL. Operational development, including the erection of a retaining wall, the erection of an access ramp, a change to the internal security fencing and associated hardstanding (retrospective), together with the continued use of the site for commercial storage/contractors yard (Use Class B8).

A discussion was held regarding how this was a retrospective application, with the applicant seeking to to regularise an earlier breach of a planning condition.  This would allow part of the site to continue to be used for commercial use.  The internal security fencing was required to improve security for the existing operator.

RESOLVED that:

i)        The Town Council has no strong views on this application. It is grateful for the District Council’s Actions to regularise the identified breaches of earlier permissions

 

8)        Application for Town of Culture Awards 

Members discussed the report regarding the Town Council’s application to submit an Expression of Interest bid for the UK Town of Culture Awards 2028.

Cllrs are concerned that this is short notice, deadline is 56 days, whilst this is a great idea for Thame, would other projects be endangered whilst staff are working on this; and current staff do not have capacity to take this on.  It is suggested that work completing the Expression of Interest could be undertaken by a Volunteer Working Group led by Cllrs to manage the work required to undertake this.

Cllrs believe that this is a fantastic opportunity for Thame and there are reactive community groups within Thame who might like to join a working group to manage this.

Town Clerk noted that first round entries accepted receive funding to continue.

Cllrs noted that the Expression of Interest integrates with other projects and the Community & Youth Centre and this would be an exciting opportunity for Thame, and this needs to be run by a Town Committee, the deadline is 31 March 2026 to submit an Expression of Interest and unknown if this grant scheme will be available in the future. 

Cllrs Wilde, Wainwright and Gilbert agreed to form a working group representing Thame Town Council.

RESOLVED that:

To approve the Town Council’s application to submit an Expression of Interest bid for the UK Town of Culture Awards 2028.

Subject to i:
i)        the approval of the creation of a start and finish working group to manage the application process.
ii)       confirming the Council membership of the working group.

 

9)        Report from County Councillors

CSO gave a verbal update on queries arising from the County Councillors’ report from the meeting on 20 January 2026.

The personal statement received from Cllr Edwards was noted.  Thame Town Council send best wishes to Cllr Edwards and her family. 

 

10)        Members Questions (under Standing Order 11)

No questions raised.

 

11)        Minutes

The Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 20 January 2026 were received.

RESOLVED that:

i)        The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2026 are confirmed as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

 

12)       Exclusion of the Public

To move: That under Section 1, Paragraph 2 of The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business because publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted.

 

13)        Council Administration

Discussed guidance in relation to membership of external organisations on behalf of the Council. 

 

14)        2025/2026 Schedule of Meetings

Discussed the Schedule of Meetings for 2025/2026.

 

The meeting concluded at 9:16pm.

 

Signed ………………………

Chair, 31 March 2026