Here’s the letter I sent to members of the planning committee before their meeting on 2nd Dec 2020 to consider the West Way application for 30 extra flats, none affordable, and with no parking provision.

Dear colleagues, 

I’m emailing the members and substitutes of the Planning Committee, mostly due to my doubt that I can fit my message into the time I’m allowed in the meeting. 
There are a couple of good reasons to refuse this application: 

First, this is over development of the site, in terms of both number of storeys and density. The proposal is non-compliant with the Botley SPD  (part of Vale’s development plan), which limits any building height to 8 storeys. I see that West Way Community Concern has comprehensively covered that topic in their note to you. For convenience, I’ve attached it here.

Second, this application is non-compliant with our affordable housing policy. Core Policy 24 requires 35% affordable housing on all developments over 10 dwellings. This application is for 30 units, so policy compliance would be 35% of that, or 10.5 affordable units. Policy allows a monetary payment in lieu of a fractional amount. So, to be policy compliant, the applicant would provide 10 affordable units plus a financial contribution (for the .5 united of the 10.5 required) to affordable housing elsewhere in the district. 
There is already permitted consent on this site for 120 flats with zero affordable units. The developer previously agreed to pay £2m in lieu of the expected 42 onsite units, which gives a value per affordable-unit-not-provided-on-site of about £48k. So if the developer were to negotiate a similar obligation for this application, £48K for 10.5 units would be £500,000 as a payment in lieu of onsite units. But there is nothing on offer here.  

Those two material considerations should be enough for you to vote to refuse. 

However, if you are still minded to approve it: 
Please require the following conditions: 

1. All residential units, student rooms and hotel rooms are intended to be car-free. In the permitted application, the developer recognised that this would likely be problematic for the local area, so they agreed to provide funding for a Controlled Parking Zone in nearby roads. Adding 30 more flats would surely lead to a greater need for funding for a wider area of CPZ. 
2. Cycle parking does not meet County’s current standards, as you’ve read in the officer’s report. Officers concluded that since the permitted application doesn’t have the required number of cycle parking spaces, it was fair to not require it for this application either. I urge you to add a condition that there will be safe and secure cycle parking provision to County’s current standard for all the residences to be built under this permission.

And finally, in reading the officer’s report, I had these questions…

1. CCG asked for s106 monies. Do you understand the reasons why it isn’t getting any for the GP surgery? 
2. Leisure asked for s106 money. Do you understand the reasons for not giving any to local leisure facilities? 
3. Do you understand where the hundreds of residents in this development can go to find open green space amenity? Is that OK in your view?
4. The registered providers don’t feel these flats are suitable for family living. Do you disagree or agree with that?

I hope you vote to refuse. If you refuse, the applicant still has permission for the 120 original market flats with no parking and inadequate cycle parking. The Botley community doesn’t want to have a worse deal than they have now.

Thanks for listening. See you at the meeting.  

Regards, 

Debby

Committee voted to refuse the application for reasons of parking, mass and density and lack of affordable housing.