Here’s what I submitted to the Vale planning department.

APPLICATION WEB COMMENTS FORM

Location : 27 Maple Close Botley (in the parish of North Hinksey) OX2 9DZ
Proposal : Erection of single storey side extension.
Application Reference : P15/V0527/HH – 7

Cllr Debby Hallett
13 April 2015

I write as the local council member for this area.

Speculative developers continue their greedy attempt to get just a bit more than they already have permission for. The applicant already has permission for 9 flats over three floors with only 8 parking spaces. The Local Planning Authority thought that plan didn’t have enough parking provision and that the noise pollution would make living there unhealthy. Applicants won permission on appeal.

I can only assume applicants are planning for the same again.

This new proposal is too big for the site, with 4 storeys seeking to dominate the street and also the visible skyline from the A34 as you pass by. As far as I am aware, we have no 4 storey buidling in this area.

This location is right next to the Botley AQMA. No analyses are displayed on the Vale website for recent assessments. In 2009 there was a problem just to the south of this site. In 2007, the assessment showed this site was barely below the threshold. Are there recent montoring reports? There is hopefully Vale planning policy controlling how we decide what’s appropriate to build here. With this AQMA being the worst in the Vale (more exceedences of EU thresholds, and no action plan for improving it) I think development without mitigation alongside the A34 in this corridor is irresponsible.

The inspector who reviewed the previous application for this site pointed out that the Local Highways Authority and the LPA need to get clear on our parking policies. The LHA looks at provision in terms of the maximum, seemingly to encourage transport by means other than cars. The reality on the ground is that most people in this area own cars, and a 2 bedroom flat is just as likely to have 2 cars as to have none. (Is there data for this? Car ownership in Botley?) In this particular case, there is no on-street parking available, and the corner into Arthray Rd is already difficult to navigate due to overparking.

Our current Design Guide says:

4.13.3 A balanced approach should be taken to achieve convenient parking in close proximity to households whilst reducing the dominance of car parking on the street scene.

I think this frontage, being 100% parking, is unacceptable.

It also says:

Principle DG48: On-plot parking – driveways. Front driveways in larger or urban and semi-urban schemes should generally be avoided as this necessitates wider streets, tends to have a considerable visual impact and can restrict informal surveillance. In these locations driveways should be located to the side of properties.

The LPA has a duty of care to current residents, and also to future/potential residents. Let’s not build low quality buildings (note the expternal pipes etc on the one next door) of very small rooms, without enough parking, in areas of noise and air pollution as cheap alternatives for hapless residents. Surely we can demand better than this.