29 July 2025 – Minutes
THAME TOWN COUNCIL
Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 29 July 2025 at 6:30pm in the Upper Chamber, Thame Town Hall.
Present:
Cllrs M Baines (Chairman), L Emery, A Gilbert (Town Mayor), C Jones, S McGarry (Deputy Chairman) and W Wilde
Non-Voting
Cllr M Dyer
Officers
G Markland, Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer
L Fuller, Communications Manager
Cllr Baines welcomed Cllr Wilde to his first Planning Committee meeting.
1) Apologies for Absence
Apologies were received from Cllrs Dawson (personal) and Dodds (personal).
2) Declarations of Interest and Dispensations
Cllr Emery declared an interest in planning application P25/S1911/HH as a resident of the estate and a member of the Chiltern Value Residents Association.
Cllr Gilbert declared an interest in planning application P25/S1911/HH as a resident of the estate.
These are not pecuniary interests and do not preclude these councillors from debating or voting on this item.
3) Public Participation and Public Questions
A resident of Thame spoke in relation to Item 7. They had researched Thame’s street names, and in doing so had identified some inconsistencies in how street name suffixes have been applied. Policies of other councils had been identified to ensure suffixes are meaningful and logical. SODC do not have such a policy but have advised that ‘Way’ should be used where the road leads to another or is a large close. The committee should suggest a street name with the correct suffix, and suggested that Close, Court, Green, Place, Gardens or Grove would be suitable.
Members then discussed and made a recommendation regarding Item 7.
4) Minutes
The Minutes of the Committee Meeting held on 3 June 2025 were received.
RESOLVED that:
- The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2025 are confirmed as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.
5) Planning Applications
a) Members were asked to consider and agree a response for each of the following planning applications:
2002 – The Watch Doctor, 44 Upper High Street
Installation of external LED Trough Lighting to the front and right hand side elevation.
P25/S1697/FUL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: GDR2, CPQ1, CPQ2, CPQ3
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES2, DES3, DES5, DES6, DES7, DES8, ENV6, ENV8, TC5
The committee felt the proposals do not respect the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, and the lighting is not justified.
RESOLVED:
- To object to planning application P25/S1697/FUL:
- The illumination of the fascia does not comply with Local Plan 2035 Policy ENV8 and Thame Neighbourhood Plan CPQ3 and is deemed unnecessary given number 44’s prominent location and proximity to street lighting. Both the adjacent junction and pavements are well-lit, ensuring the safety of anyone entering or leaving the store after dark.
- The building has sizeable ground floor windows that would present an obvious, active frontage during the occasional evening events referred to within the applicant’s Design and Access Statement. These events appear to be infrequent and invitation only; as the store’s function would not rely on passing evening trade external illumination cannot be justified.
- Reference the applicant makes to the potential for the lighting to deter criminality suggests they intend to illuminate the premises throughout the night. The building already benefits from internal shuttering to the windows and an external shutter to the entrance. The junction and approaches are covered by a CCTV camera mounted to the adjacent lamp post. The Town Council is not aware of any criminal activities occurring at this key, well-trafficked junction and is unable to support this argument.
2006 – Land between Chestnut Farmhouse and Elm View
Residential development of up to three dwellings.
P25/S1954/PIP
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: GDH1, GDH2, CPQ1, CPQ4, CPQ5, CPQ6, CPQ7, NEB1, NEF1, GAAT1
SODC Local Plan Policies: CF5, DES1, DES2, DES3, DES5, DES6, DES7, DES8, ENV1, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV12, EP3, H3, H9, H11, H12, H16, INF1, STRAT1, STRAT5, TH1, TRANS2, TRANS4, TRANS5
The officer explained that the site is not classed as infill when considered against the recent appeal decision at a nearby location. Other recommended objections include harm to the conservation area.
Local objection was noted.
A suggestion was made to comment on the partial loss of the bordering hedgerow for a junction and the threat to it from future residents requesting formal management. This would negatively impact habitat, biodiversity and the character of the area.
It was noted that the infill development at the entrance of Moreton was refused by the Town and District Councils but due to a lack of 5-year land supply it was granted at appeal.
Cllr Baines volunteered to represent the Town Council at SODC.
RESOLVED:
- To object to planning application P25/S1954/PIP:
- The proposal does not represent infill development as defined within 2035 Local Plan Policy H16.
- The proposal would harm the setting of the Moreton Conservation Area, contrary to Policies DES2 and ENV8 and Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP2) Policy CPQ1, in failing to conserve or enhance its special interest, character, setting and appearance.
- The location of the development would not give future residents good access to services and facilities nor be within walking distance of essential services and amenities as per TNP2 Policy GDH1.
- The benefit of the provision of three homes would not outweigh the harm the proposal would cause to the significance of the MCA.
- The loss of the hedgerows at the front of the site will negatively impact the feel of the area, biodiversity and acoustics.
b) Members were asked to receive and comment on the Officer’s recommendations for the following planning applications:
2003 – 5 Hazel Avenue
The proposal is to demolish the rear/side garage, and add a ground floor side extension.
P25/S1911/HH
RESOLVED:
- To support planning application P25/S1911/HH.
RESOLVED:
- To approve the following applications as per the recommendations:
2007 – 12 Robin Gibb Road
Carport to side of house.
P25/S1992/HH
Agreed response: Supports
2008 – Brook Cottage, Moreton
Replacement of old black copper communication cable with new black digital communication cable, following existing routes around and into house.
P25/S2048/LB
Agreed response: Supports subject to no objection from the Heritage Officer.
2009 – 5 Lambert Walk
Extend and convert existing integral garage entirely to form level access bedroom and shower room.
P25/S1873/HH
Agreed response: Supports subject to the existing off-street parking provision being retained.
6) Delegated Planning Responses
The committee received the minutes of delegated planning responses meeting held on 9 July 2025 with the Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer, and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee.
The committee noted that due to timescales, amended plans at Trafalgar House, 1 Nelson Street (P25/S1092/A) were responded to via email. It was agreed to maintain the Town Council’s objections on the grounds that the signage would still dominate the frontage, be out of character, and materials are inappropriate. The proposal would remain contrary to TNP2 Policies CPQ1 and CPQ3 and guidance from the Joint Design guide, Thame Design Code, the Thame Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Local Plan Policies ENV6 and ENV8.
It was noted that the accompanying advertisement application to the listed building application at 3 High Street had now been submitted. Due to timescales this cannot be taken to the next Planning Committee however the case officer has confirmed that the plans are identical to the listed building application. Therefore the original listed building comments will be resubmitted for the advertisement application.
7) Street Naming – Development south of Windmill Road (31 homes)
The committee were asked to consider and agree a street name for the development of 31 dwellings south of Windmill Road (Community Land Trust site).
The District’s Street Naming Officer has advised that SOHA have suggested the name ‘Holland Way’ and has requested that the Town Council consider this name or suggest an alternative.
A suggestion was made by the Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC) to name the street ‘Windmill Field’ as this is the original name for the field.
A suggestion was made by a resident to name the street after Bob Austin who has put a considerable amount of time and effort into the Community Land Trust over many years.
Notwithstanding the commendable efforts made by individuals to enable this affordable housing development, the committee felt it preferable to not use names of living individuals. It was also noted that using Windmill Field so close to Windmill Road could be confusing.
The committee also felt that in light of earlier suggestions under Item 4, the use of ‘Way’ on this road would not be suitable.
As suggestion was made to use Mill or Millers, to reflect the name ‘Windmill Field’.
RESOLVED:
- To recommend that the street name ‘Millers Field’ be suggested for the development south of Windmill Road (31 homes).
8) Pavement Licence Application – PAV/29495/25 – Costa Coffee, Thame
The committee were asked to consider and agree a response to the consultation. The proposed seating arrangements are as existing.
RESOLVED:
- To support the Pavement Licence Application subject to the usual provisos regarding maintaining access for disabled and visually impaired persons, and that all street furniture be removed as required for town centre events.
9) Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) Working Group
The report was noted.
It was felt that the consultation documents were too lengthy for residents to read and understand, and this discouraged engagement. It was recognised that the Environmental Project Officer had done a lot of work to simplify the consultation for residents. The County Council should provide an executive summary as standard with all consultations, which could be produced with AI, and also present to Thame’s community who hold valuable local knowledge.
It was frustrating the plans did not include the Haddenham-Thame Greenway due to it being a cross-county border project.
10) For Information
The items for information were noted.
Due to the backlog at SODC, many amended plans are not being subject to consultation and in some cases the plans remove the Town Council’s objections.
Item 10a – It was noted that CAAC have highlighted the deteriorating state of the Corals windows. This had been raised with Building Control in 2022. Officers will follow this up.
Item 10f – It was questioned whether this was a retrospective application as the building already has solar panels on.
Item 10g – It was noted that the internal alterations to the recently opened Majestic Wines have been carried out without permission and this has been raised with enforcement.
Item 10f – This is a Screening Opinion application to establish whether an Environmental Impact Assessment will be required as part of a full planning application. The EIA assess flood risk and impacts on the landscape and traffic. An article is being prepared for the newsletter to explain the current situation to residents and that no decisions have been made. A retail impact assessment will be required as part of the full planning application.
The meeting concluded at 7:26pm.
Signed ……………………..
Chairman, 26 August 2025