I just spoke to Stuart Walker, our planning officer for the West Way application.
Doric/Mace’s amended plans are expected by the end of this month. Once they are received and checked, they’ll be published and then another three week consultation begins.
“Burger’s”
Timeframe is now looking like planning committee will hear this toward the end of October, if all goes well.
Here’s what I said in my comments in the consulation for the Air Quality Action Plan. Consultation continues through the 15th of August.
See the draft AQAP and comment here: bit.ly/1iYyP5J (If you haven’t previously registered on the Consultation portal, you’ll need to do so.)
I could have just referred them to my previous blog posts.
Hotel Maria Elena logged their supportive comments about the West Way Plans.
You really should read these. Seriously. Go take a look.
They are still on the Vale website for West Way planning application. I’ve downloaded them to Dropbox, because I figure as soon as someone in authority sees the content, they’ll be taken down. So this is, like, a civic duty.
From 24 July, bit.ly/1p7f3p0
From 26 July, bit.ly/1nnR7Zi
16 July 2014 full council meeting.
Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councill Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy:
The Vale consulted on its draft Local Plan 2029 in February 2013. How many responses were received, and could the Cabinet member please tell me when the consequentional changes made to the first draft Local Plan 2029 will be made public, and how he intends to highlight what has changed between the drafts?
He said, and I scribbled:
Report was published Feb 2014 that told us 2340 reponses from 500 people and organisations. The next draft will be published later this year. The consequential changes will be part of that draft.
My supplementary question:
What does the Cabinet member see as the purpose of his Local Plan Consultations? That is, what is the overall intention of Consultations?
He repeated the official line, that’s it’s to get opinion of the public to inform decision making.
My bet is that Doric’s contribution to the Local Plan 2029 we consulted on will still be in there, in spite of many of us reponsing that it wasn’t our vision for Botley.
I’ve also sent a query as to the status of Oxford Brooks University’s Master Plan. It was in the first draft as a Supplementary Planning Document, but was put on hold in July 2013.
16 July 2014 at the full council meeting:
Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Elaine Ware, Cabinet member for economy, leisure and property:
What is the current policy for deciding about letting emty units in West Way Centre?
Cllr Ware’s answer was verbal, so I scribbled some notes. (I expect her answer will be in the council’s minutes when they are published.)
The Vale owns West Way and makes the letting decisions. Out of courtesy, Doric are consulted. Doric’s concern is that letting agreements not go beyond Dec 2015, which would interfere with their development plans. Doric sometimes make a financial contribution to help offset the lower-than-market rents in any deals that are affected by the short term of the ageement.
Then I asked as a supplementaty (no advance notice is given to anyone of the nature of a supplementary question):
What role do Doric Properties play in the day-to-day running of West Way?
Answer: essentially, none. The Vale own and manage the property.
Subsequently I reported to the CEO David Buckle that there have been some mis-communications to current tenants about Doric’s role in every day decisions. For example, the agent told busness owners that Doric held approval authority over the West Way Festival and other potential events. Mr Buckle says Doric don’t have that role. The Vale own West Way. I asked that the agents be updated with correct information.
Yesterday the Coop’s objections were posted to the Vale website for the West Way project. You can read them here: http://bit.ly/1rVB3Wo
“Over ambitious and unlikely to be viable.”
“Not justified on the basis of the council’s own evidence base.”
Have a read. If you have comments, please leave them there, or here.
Last night the Vale Planning Committee voted to refuse permission to build the mega-block of flats on the corner of Cumnor Hill and Hurst Rise Road.
Councillors felt that the applicant’s introduction of the idea of this site as a special landmark corner, and a transition between the Cumnor and Botley areas, was a ploy to exempt them from having to adhere to planning policy. The applicants put the case that since this is a special, landmark location, it deserves a special landmark building such as their design for three storeys of flats and roof gardens.
Councillor Janet Shelley asked her colleagues on committee, ‘If it’s such a landmark design, why do they need to hide it behind so many trees?’ (Laughter.)
Speaking against the plans were Cllr Julia Hammett of the North Hinksey Parish Council, Melanie Jackson Smith, representing the community of homeoners who objected, and me, representing the people of North Hinksey & Wytham, but also looking out for the future of the Vale.
If we let a developer call a corner ‘special’ and then allow him to breach every policy and design guideline we have, it would mean everyone would be looking around for such special corners in their area where they could essentially build anything they want. That’s a road we do not want to travel!
A win for the people. Well, done, everyone!
AQAP – Air Quality Action Plan. When pollution is higher than the EU threshold, human health and well-being are negatively affected, and councils are required to create and implement an AQAP. The Vale’s draft plan (which is currently out for consultation) came to Scrutiny on the 24th of July.
There are three areas in the Vale that have in the past, or do now have, NO2 pollution above the threshold: Abingdon, Botley and Marcham. Only Botley is currently showing levels that are too high.
The draft AQAP has only one suggestion for Botley: consider higher walls to protect people from the pollution from the A34.
There was no mention of other ideas such as planting trees to absorb the pollution, banning LDVs or HGVs in Westminster Way, slowing down traffic on A34 (although I’m told by people who should know that the 50mph limit is for noise abatement, not air quality). Please have a read of the report — it’s interesting. One thing I learned is that buses aren’t a problem in Botley but they are in Abingdon. (I don’t know how they can tell that, and the report doesn’t say.)
If you have some additional ideas about how to improve the air quality along both sides of the A34 (that’s where the pollution is over the limits) then please, PLEASE log your comments on the consultation. You can get to the consultation via my previous blog post. In the draft report you can see a map of the problem areas.
Or let me know and I will take your ideas forward.
Amusingly, I was lectured a bit at the meeting by Cllr Eric Batts (who has to either miss his North Hinksey Parish Council meeting or the Scrutiny meeting, as they are scheduled for the same 4th Thursday night). He told committee that he has been involved in trying to improve air quality for years, and that it’s really, really difficult, and he doesn’t see what more they can do.
Well, here’s what I say to that. #Fail! Air pollution levels along the A34 are unacceptable. There there are health effects for residents. The Tories have taken NO action to protect Botley residents. None. Does the EU have to cite the Vale for violations before they will do something?
Intractable air quailty problems mean the Vale Cabinet member for Environmental Health has to work collaboratively with other orgnisations that are more directly responsible for traffic, roads, lorries and vans — all the contributors to our air pollution problems. Low hanging fruit was plucked years ago, and now we require councillors of imagination, intelligence and determination. The Vale has a legal and moral responsibility to do their best for us.
On 28 June 2014, while I was away on holiday, Doric/Mace sent out a letter to ‘stakeholders’. In it they made quite a few claims, but two in particular caught my attention as being misleading or just not true:
On the first item. Yes, there was an all-day session with the Design Panel, who asked probing questions and critically commented on the design. However, I was not a participant. I was invited there to observe. Members of North Hinksey Parish Council weren’t even at the table — they were also strictly observers. Doric make it sound like we were all discussing their design! Not the case; misleading the audience.
On the second item. As far as what I thought was ‘impressive’, here is what I wrote about it (see the whole blog post here).
…Stuart Walker… asked me what I thought of the process so far. I said I was very impressed with how the panel members seemed to understand the key issues; they were very sharp. They are experienced enough to know when they are getting hype instead of facts too.
Doric made it sound like we were in agreement! Not the case; just not true.
I first replied to Ellis Cresswell, who had emailed me the letter. We’ve never met or spoken. I’ve had no reply.
I strongly object to your using my name to imply that I support your proposals in any way. I am completely against your plans. I’ve no idea what you think I may have said but I did not in any way agree with you. You imply I participated in this, and I did not; I was there strictly as an observer and not allowed to participate. Please retract the part of this statement that refers to me.
I then wrote to Simon Hillcox of Doric, who did reply, and we exchanged a few emails:
I’m not sure who this Ellis person is; we’ve not met that I recall. He certainly didn’t speak to me about using my name in your propaganda. Closer inspection of this letter shows it has your authorisation. My previous email demanded a retraction. I now want to be clearer. If I don’t see a public retraction of what you’ve said about me in this email within the next 6 hours, I’ll take further steps. I’m currently seeking advice.
I’m appalled that you would use my name to try to garner wider support for your scheme. In no way do I agree with you, nor with your plans for my community, nor with your assertion that the Design Panel thought yours was a good design. Your letter makes it sound as if I was part of the panel that you say thought you had a good design. That’s absolutely not true.
Your letter also implies that the North Hinksey Parish Council members were participating in this review. Also not true.
We were invited as observers. We did not participate.
In anticipation of your prompt reply and action.
Mr Hillcox, founder of Doric, would not retract. I told him the most upsetting thing was that I couldn’t tell who he had sent this letter of lies to, so I had no way to contact the same people to correct what had been said about me. I felt he had sullied my reputation, especially considering all the work I have done in this community to fight this Doric deal.
The action I decided to take was to publish all this. Half truths intended to mislead, and outright lies if there is little danger of libel suits. Total lack of integrity. Complete self interest. And not a word of apology or correction.
Headington Farmers’s Market got sick and tired of Doric Properties using them to further their own private interests. HFM told Doric to stop.
Doric had a reply.
You can see the exchange here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Headington-Farmers-Market/415403325525?ref=ts&fref=ts. Scroll down the page to the entry for 12 July.
I think you should be able to see this page even if you aren’t a registered Facebook user. I know such people can see my page. You just can’t leave a comment if you aren’t. If you find you cannot see this page, leave a comment here and I’ll help.