Botley Redline Area?

Botley Area Redline smallerThe Vale Tories used a Doric definition as their policy for Botley Central Area in Local Plan 2031. Now that the Doric planning application has been refused, another big problem with the Local Plan 2031 is clear.

I objected many times to Doric having a hand in forming planning policy. I was variously assured by senior officers that a) developers have no role to play in policy formation, and b) that it was usual and helpfulĀ  for developers to have a hand in policy formation. So, which is it? Both of these things can’t be true.

IMG_1571Doric wanted to demolish the Vicarage, Elms Parade and Field House (after seizing them by Cumpulsory Purchase Orders that the Vale would execute, if necessary). Now that their planning application has been refused, there is to be a second plan, with a smaller footprint, which excludes these three properties.

Top two photos are from page 58 of the Vale Tories’ Local Plan 2031. (Click on them to make them bigger and easier to read.) The blue one below is the actual policy, from page 59 of the Vale Tories’ Local Plan.

Doric's policy for Botley

This policy for Central Botley came from Doric.

Now that Doric have successfully insinuated their pipedream into the Vale planning policy via the Local Plan 2031, how will any other panning application ever be in accordance with the Local Plan? I don’t see how this can possibly work.

If the Vale Planning department and planning committee consider their own policies as material planning considerations, then any planning application for other than the original Doric redlined site would be refused. Wouldn’t it?

I wonder if there is now any way to point out this late-arising problem to the inspector? So that s/he can throw out the ridiculous policy for Central Botley.

 

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.