Category Archives: Environment

Safeguarding the Raleigh Park Fen

On the evening of 25 Jan 23, Stephen Parkinson (Chair of Friends of Raleigh Park) and I (your  local councillor) addressed the Vale Planning Committee about our concerns regarding the site at the top of Yarnells Hill, whose owners wanted to build 3 new dwellings.

At committee meetings, we only get 3 minutes to express ourselves, so I usually write to them ahead of time. This was no different. Here’s what my letter said.

Officers remind us that the NPPF says decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I contend that the high risk of irrevocable damage to the irreplaceable habitat adjoining the site is just such material consideration; the NPPF says irreplaceable sites like this must be safeguarded.

Vale is not in a situation where these three luxury homes are needed. We have currently over a 6 year supply of housing land. So our strategy for providing housing is working, and these extra windfall houses are not necessary to provide the housing numbers we have committed to.

The proposed mitigation must be monitored. Even if monitoring works and notes a failure of the mitigation, it will be after the fact and the harm will already be done. This is the nature of anything that requires monitoring to succeed.

Vale’s Countryside officer doesn’t support the application. Oxford City does not support this application.

This application has been set to come to committee three times. Each time, local people and concerned ecological professionals trying to preserve Raleigh Park’s ancient fen launch into action, presenting hard evidence to committee members to urge you to vote to refuse this development. For whatever reasons, planners have removed this application from the agenda at the last minute three times. Once it was to gain ‘independent’ paid consultants’ opinion regarding the ecological risk – this was when they hired a company, Aspect Ecology, to help them out (the same company that also provided evidence to government in support of HS2). Once it was during the planning meeting itself, when it was clear the agenda could not be completed (I don’t think officers included this instance in their report). Once, most recently, was when it was recognised that there had been a problem with consultation procedures. Each time, so many people’s hard work had gone into preparing arguments about why this application should be refused. Each time, the officers took away that evidence to bring back more arguments why this development should be allowed. Why is that? Is this council a culture where we are unable to revisit decisions in light of new evidence and come to a different conclusion? A large handful of ecological experts have all pointed out in detail what can go wrong, how the fen is endangered. It’s our duty to safeguard the irreplaceable habitat.

Please read Dr Parkinson’s assessment of the mitigations. He provides a summary of what several other ecologists have determined.

Over the years that I’ve been trying to protect the wildlife and natural resources up in this corner of Botley, we’ve seen about a dozen million pound homes built in this area, one site was turned from a single family home into multiple flats (Little Dene), and the whole of the development by Bovis of 136 homes went ahead. Badgers have been forced out of their habitats. Most recently a site just opposite was approved for two new huge houses. (That site is interesting; the decision to grant permission came early, in spite of officers telling me it was being considered alongside this one, due to the similarity in ecological concerns. It also adjoins Raleigh Park, but it is brownfield where the current site is green field.) Local wildlife now have only this small corner of Yarnells Hill available for foraging and shelter, adjacent to Green Belt, adjacent to an irreplaceable habitat in Raleigh Park.

But the main this is that this is a planning decision to be taken “on balance”. Does the benefit outweigh the risk of harm? A windfall of 3 houses vs damage to an irreplaceable habitat that it is our duty to protect. How can we rely on a planning condition that requires enforcement to protect what’s irreplaceable?

You can see the meeting and hear what everyone said on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkA4ZiPfIoA

Planning Committee voted unanimously to refuse the application. I’m very grateful to everyone who helped in this effort.

Licenses to harm badger setts and clans

I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Natural England. I asked them to provide information about requests they’ve received from development sites in Vale for permission to damage, destroy, block or otherwise cause harm to or interfere with badger setts and clans.

Here is what I asked:

Dear Natural England,

Developers requesting planning permission are regularly told by our local planning authority that they need a license from Natural England to allow them damage, destroy, block or otherwise cause harm to or interfere with badger setts and clans.

Provide total number of such licenses in Vale of White Horse that were sought in the past 5 years. 
Provide a total of licenses that were granted in that time. 
Provide a list all such licenses that were refused in that time, and include enough information that we can understand the location and reasons for refusal.

If there are applications for such licenses that have another disposition other than refused or granted, please list them.

Regards, 
Cllr Debby Hallett

Natural England replied to me. They informed me that no licenses have been refused in the past 5 years. 

I think that perhaps this information calls for a reconsideration in how we use ‘harm to badgers’ as a reason to refuse in our objections to planning applications.

Earlier, I spoke with the environment officer at Vale, who explained to me that badgers are not endangered — there are lots of them. The act was put in place to prevent cruelty to badgers. That makes more understandable the frustration we experience when all development sites are granted license to damage or destroy setts or even clans. I don’t think it’s right, but now it is understandable. 

For more information on the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, see the RSPCA site here:  https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/inthewild/badgers/law

 

I’m fed up with litter on the A34. FED UP!

Since I was elected to the district council in 2011, I’ve tried everything I know to get the Tories to take responsibility for and clear up the litter along the A34. It’s not so bad elsewhere, like up in Oxford City area, or Cherwell. But in Vale, especially from the Marcham exchange (by Abingdon Tesco) up to Wytham, it’s just awful – an embarrassment to us all. It’s worse in the winter when the grass verges die back and you can actually see it all.

Over the years, I’ve asked publicly for Tory cabinet members to get the litter along the A34 cleared up. Repeatedly, and by different Tory cabinet members, I’ve been told that it’s not Vale’s responsibility. ‘Not my job, gov.’

This week I discussed the (intractable?) problem with Vale’s new Head of Service for Environmental Health, and she told me it absolutely IS Vale’s responsibility. !!!

So she’s going to meet with Highways England to agree an approach to solving this problem, and I say, ‘About time!’

I wanted to let you know the latest. An improvement may be coming soon.

I think it’s time for me to ask the Tory Cabinet member for another answer, and ask for the truth this time. I’m fed up.

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway – Vale Liberal Democrats’ response

Response to Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Consultation

This response is from the Liberal Democrat councillors representing the Vale of White Horse District Council.

  • The corridor decision is scheduled for Summer 2018. Although stakeholders have been involved in consultations to progress this project, the people and places that it affects may still be totally unaware of the full consequences. There should be full public consultation not only on the Expressway corridors but on the wider ramifications of the scheme before the corridor decision is taken.
  • The three corridors were all prepared as ‘desk-top’ choices based purely on data collected on East/ West travel. The current corridor choices are only now being subjected to an interactive regional traffic computer model. The current timetable should be put on hold whilst these results are analysed and further public consultation has taken place.
  • A railway freight train is capable of transporting the equivalent of 140 freight trucks. This results in a huge reduction in diesel fumes, NO2 emissions, road repairs, congestion etc. The Liberal Democrat view is that the East-West Rail project, including electrification, should be progressed as a priority. There should be transparent discussions between Highways England and National Rail about the costings and viability of the rail connection from Oxford past Bedford to Cambridge.
  • The relationship of each proposed corridor to Green Belt areas, SSIs, AONBs, heritage assets, hamlets, villages and towns should be clearly delineated on large scale maps available online to the public and widely advertised in the counties and districts concerned before the corridor decision is taken.
  • The current traffic congestion on the A34 as it runs through the Vale district causes severe problems to residents and the local economy. None of the expressway corridor options will significantly reduce this congestion. The building of the road will cause widespread disruption for no overall benefit to the Vale District.

For all the above reasons, we do not support the current proposals for the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway.

 

 

Question in Council on Air Quality Action Plans

(Updated 1 Jan 18 to  include Cabinet member’s reply  – in green italics)

At the full Vale council meeting on 13 Dec 2017, the Liberal Democrat Cllr Emily Smith asked a question of the Cabinet member for Environmental Protection Elaine Ware. Despite the fact that the question was submitted on time, 10 days before the council meeting, the Cabinet member said she was unable to supply an answer on the night, promising a written response in a few days. We had the reply on 21st Dec 2017. 

Here is the question:

Question from Cllr Emily Smith to Cabinet Member for Environmental Protection, Cllr Elaine Ware:

In the 2015 Air Quality Management Plan the 11 district wide actions were:

1. Creation of a ‘low emission strategy’ and ‘low emission zone’ feasibility study (target date 2017) – Named as a focus of work for 2017-18 in the Annual Status Report. This work is dependent on external funding. We are currently compiling a bid for a Defra air quality grant with Ricardo to undertake this work

2. Installation of electric vehicle recharging points – Planning conditions requiring electric charging points are placed on applicable planning applications

3. Parking permit & pricing incentives for green vehicles (target date 2016) – Target delayed due to resources. An air quality officer 0.5 post has been recruited and is currently undergoing training. Once this is completed the action plan target will
be rescheduled.

4. Feasibility study for freight transport consolidation centre (FCC) / freight quality partnership (target date 2016) – Initial discussions with OCC and other Local Authorities have concluded that this is a long-term action and will be raised when the new Oxfordshire infrastructure proposals are discussed.

5. Taxi licensing incentives for green vehicles (target date 2016) – Target delayed due to resources. An air quality officer 0.5 post has been recruited and is currently undergoing training. Once this is completed the action plan target with be rescheduled.

6. Improved use and enforcement of traffic regulation orders (target date 2016) – This action will be included in the proposed Low Emission Strategy study

7. Review of the council and contractors fleet – Named as a focus of work for 2017-18 in the Annual Status Report and is underway. New waste vehicles with improved emission standards are now operated by Biffa the waste contractor.

8. Eco driver training (trial to be complete by 2016) – Target delayed due to resources. An air quality officer 0.5 post has been recruited and is currently undergoing training. Once this is completed the action plan target will be rescheduled.

9. Air quality planning guidance (target date 2015) – This is referenced in the LPP2 proposals and consultation is taking place with various officers in planning to complete the document (target January 2018)

10. Community involvement projects – Named as a focus of work for 2017-18 in the Annual Status Report. The Vale is involved with Sustrans and local Abingdon groups to investigate a simple project connecting cycle routes in Abingdon and produce a dedicated map promoting cycling in the town. Botley schools – potential project supporting air quality as part of curriculum. Plan to apply for Defra funding for a public outreach project as a joint application with other Oxfordshire Councils in 2018. This would connect with schools, GP and local groups.

11. Introduce south facing slip roads to Lodge Hill interchange – This action has been approved nationally and is being executed by Oxfordshire County Council.

Please can the cabinet member confirm which of these actions are complete and provide an update of those which are not? What evidence do we have that each of these measures has been successful or otherwise?

 

 

Question to Tories about Botley Petrol Station

I think the loss of the last local petrol stations is an environmental sustainability issue for Planning Policy.Today we learned that the Esso station in Oxpens Rd is to close 17 August. http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13502318.Oxford_petrol_station_set_to_close_ahead_of_redevelopment/?ref=mr&lp=2

I’m trying to get Vale Tories to recognise that loss of local options for fueling our cars forces thousands of drivers to hit the A34 (already a source of pollution and operating above capacity) to drive further afield to find petrol. I think this is a serious environmental issue that deserves Planning Policy consideration. We have ways to save local pubs, after all.

At the July full Vale Council meeting, I asked the Cabinet member for Planning Policy, Cllr Michael Murray, a question about it.

“The loss of the last petrol station in Botley is an environmental concern when it means thousands of extra cars must travel on the already over-capacity A34 to Peartree, Heyford Hill or Abingdon in order to fill the tank. What policy changes could the Vale consider to address this environmental sustainability issue?”

His reply: “We will all be very aware of the great strides forward in technology that the car manufacturing industry has taken in the past few years. In particular they have focussed on increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions. This, coupled with competition between suppliers and increased taxation on fuel to encourage reduced consumption, has resulted in greatly reduced margins and market capacity for roadside retailers. As such we have seen a considerable consolidation of the sector. However the improvement in vehicle range on a tank of fuel has very much reduced the need for local fuel provision. Whilst the BP garage at Seacourt Tower remains open for business, there is no certainty that this, or any other fuel, or other retail, or other commercial use for any building in the Vale, will continue to trade in the long term in the face of changing market conditions, and it does not appear immediately obvious why increasingly scarce council resources should be deployed to developing a fuel retailer policy specifically for Botley as a priority over other more pressing Vale wide matters”.

An unhelpful, and rather snarky response, I thought.

I asked my follow-up question regarding ways in which the council could demonstrate the need for a joined up planning policy approach in Botley, Cllr Murray first remonstrated with the chairman  that my question shouldn’t be allowed as it wasn’t really supplementary to the original question. Chairman ruled against him. So Cllr Murray then stated that views were sought during the consultation on the draft local plan. There would be a further opportunity to submit views/ideas during the Botley supplementary planning document consultation process.

 

 

 

My comments for the AQAP consultation

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.

Do you have any comments on the actions proposed?

At the most recent Scrutiny Cttee meeting, it was made very clear that the only area where air pollution currently exceeds the EU threshold is Botley. (There was some confusion and error about Marcham, but that is being handled separately.) Abingdon does not currently have air pollution above the threshold, so no action is required there.
I represent the people of Botley, and I have been asking for this Action Plan for the past year. For that long wait, we are rewarded with only one suggestion about how to improve the air quality where I live: build a higher wall between the A34 and homes nearby. A disappointing effort that couldn’t have taken more than an hour to produce.
For Botley, surely professionals in air quality management would have more suggestions?
There are many, many potential solutions for Abingdon, where the Cabinet member has said no probem currently exists.
I’ve heard some councillors sigh as they shake their heads. ‘It’s very hard.’ Yes, it is. Low hanging fruit has alreeady been plucked, and now the brave work has to begin. in my opinion, it is not an option to do nothing. Excess pollution affects peoples health and lives. In fact, aren’t we legally lliable to take mitigating action? The Vale must seek collaboration from the other stakeholders and find some solutions.

Are there any other actions that we should pursue?

Plant lots of trees. Trees are demonstrably successful at absorbing air pollution between roads and houses.
Ban polluting vehicles from the A34. Have them go round the ring road.
Promote in some creative way low emmmission vehicles.
The report says pollution comes from the A34. It’s not clear how this is known, beyond it being the obvious source. (Certainly the poluuted areas are next to the A34). What about diesel vans on Westminster Way?
Ban HGVs and LDVs on Westminster Way.
Slow down traffic on the A34.
Put a cover over the A34 to contain pollution and treat it before expelling it into the air.
Have a solution contest and give a good prize to the best idea.
Get the view of experts. We aren’t unique here in Botley. Surely there is something that can be done.

Botley’s AQAP

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.

 

Campaign to protect Oxford Greenbelt

2014 cumnor cricket siteI’ve been helping the local Lib Dems get support in Cumnor, Botley, Sunningwell and South Hinksey for their campaign to get the Vale adminstration to look again at the proposed plans to build piecemeal on the Oxford Green Belt.

Residents have been so supportive, signing on the doorstep when we call, or via our online petition. A big Thank You to everyone who has signed our petition so far.

If you haven’t signed already, please sign the petition to help protect the Green Belt. You can do it online here: http://oxwablibdems.org.uk/en/petition/don-t-build-on-the-green-belt-petition

PS. Did you know they plan to build 200 houses in the Green Belt land behind the Cumnor cricket gounds? (Right behind us in the photo above.) Did you know the Vale’s consultants recommend removing the Fogwell Road Pavilion Grounds and the Louie Memorial Pavilion and all the upper playing fields from the Green Belt protection?

I was astonished to learn that. I signed the petition. I’ll let you know when we are going to present it to the Vale. Maybe you’ll want to come along.