Category Archives: Planning

Botley SPD public consultation – ends 25 Sep 2015

click to enlarge

The draft Botley SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) has been released for public consultation. Deadline for consultation is 16:30 on 25 Sep 2015.

This SPD, once adopted, will be a material consideration in the determination of all planning applications for the central area of Botley, most notably the anticipated Doric2 application coming in the autumn or winter this year.

Your views matter! Have a read, and send in your comments to the Vale via their website.

To see what the Vale says about what they have in mind for us in Botley, or to read or download the documents, see their website: http://bit.ly/1NOPGCb

The best way to keep up with everything happening is the West Way Concern website. Their shop at 5 Elms Parade has a hard copy so you can see it for yourself.

click to enlarge

The photo at the top of this page is an artist’s representation of one possibility (it’s from the back inside cover of the SPD). However, do note this diagram to the right, showing 8 storeys at the easternmost end (pg 29).

Doric1 had this ‘landmark’ height in the same place, on the corner. But the architect’s panel who reviewed Doric1 plans, thought the tallest part of the development should be near the centre of the site, so it was moved. We’re back to the large 8 storeys at the corner of West Way and Westminster Way. To compare, the new block of flats at the corner of Arthray Rd and Westminster Way that you can see from the A34 is three storeys. Those living on the top floor overlook the A34.

I have some opinions, yes. Your opinion counts exactly the same as mine. Plus, I’m elected to represent what’s best for this community. Won’t you let me know what you think?

I look for appropriate size and style for the Botley context, evidence that supports the choices being made (eg, student accommodation and a multiplex cinema, nightclubs or bars), pedestrian flow from the south to the north for students and parents headed toward Botley school, preservation of the burial garden at Sts Peter’s and Paul’s church, quality replacement community facilities, and so on.

I also am concerned about this development within an AQMA, and also right up against the high levels of noise from the A34. Not only should this development not contribute to noise and air pollution (the SPD goes further and says redevelopment should lower pollution and carbon exhaust), it should protect future residents from the health effects of living in the polluted air and overwhelming noise from the A34.

So, what do you think?

My response to the 50 Laburnum Road Appeal

The applicant for 9 flats at the corner of Lime Rd and Laburnum Rd has appealed against Vale’s decision to refuse permission. Applicant was previously granted permission for 7 flats there. Vale felt that 9 flats was a bridge too far, or one storey too high, as it were – that it was too big and bulky for the context in which it was sited.

You can read the applicants Full Statement here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=FolderView&ID=472269474&CODE=48B81873862BE84D5F33E1F453F7119E&NAME=Appeal&REF=P15/V0461/FUL

Applicant/Agent particularly pointed a finger at me, because I used to be a lodger there. Applicant/Agent also seems to think I had a hand in organising the community objection to this behemoth. Actually, I didn’t, specifically due to the potential that I could be perceived to be biased in some way.

So here’s what I told the inspector:

APP/V3120/W/15/3103232 – 50 Laburnum Road

I support the Vale’s decision to refuse this application for the reasons summarised in the Decision Notice and discussed in the officers’ delegated report.

I’m surprised and disappointed to learn from the appellant’s appeal statement that she never intended to build the approved plans for 7 flats, as that was too small a development to be viable. This is a significant waste of council and community time and money. There should be recourse for a LPA to take action against such time wasters.

Appellant’s agent makes it sound like I have an interest in the property. I do not. In 1997-98 I was one of three lodgers there for approx 8 months, after I arrived in this country. I moved out in August 1998, and I’ve not seen or spoken to her since. I disclosed this to the Vale planning department when the first application was submitted.

Appellant’s agent condemns organised community activism and treats community-wide objection as if it’s illegal, or immoral, or something. It’s puzzling why he would include this in his argument to an inspector (repeatedly), as if it’s a material consideration in this decision. Notwithstanding the fact that I did not organise or participate in any community-wide activism (due to my links to the applicant) , I think it’s actually useful and good for communities to organise their efforts. At planning committee meetings, objectors only have 3 minutes to make their case. Objectors therefore MUST be organised. Applicants have an obvious unfair advantage in access to planning officers and knowledgeable assistance with many meetings and discussions that ordinary residents simply do not. In fact, in this case, the LPA planning department even advised the applicant/agent during the process that this plan did not meet the criteria for acceptance, but the applicant offered no changes in mitigation.

As to the details of this application –

One main worry for me is the quality of the design, which includes (un-)spaciousness of the living areas and private amenity space for each household. Does each bedroom have a proper window? Does each flat have an outdoor space to keep and use for their private enjoyment? A patio or a balcony would suffice. A place to put up a table and chairs, or a BBQ, or for children to play? My concern is that this proposal doesn’t offer living spaces that improve the area, not only for this generation, but for all people who live here in the future. Small flats with few amenities in a large building that over-dominates this main corner of the estate is not a quality addition to the area. Vale was right to refuse.

And finally, I am glad to hear that the opinions of local people about inappropriate development in their local area are taken seriously in some cases. Localism is a real scheme, intended to empower local people to make the decisions that affect their daily lives. If local objections have raised the design and amenity standards of this profit-focussed development and made it a better place for people to live AND live near, then good.

Cabinet: Meeting Oxford’s Unmet Housing Need 7 Aug 2015

(I’ve edited this post after the Cabinet meeting, to include an update.)

About 25 people came to the Vale Cabinet meeting Friday morning (7th Aug 15). The agenda item was the report from head of planning about options for high level approaches to Vale’s commitment to duty to cooperate to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need.

Six spoke: CPRE, SPADE, Sunningwell PC, Radley PC, keep Cumnor Green, and I.

Cllrs Barber and Murray gamely tried to answer questions from an obviously opposed audience. I got that they were trying to reassure people that no decisions were going to be taken and this was the beginning of consultation on the subject. I also got that they see the BIG opposition to Green Belt development. (But I think they’re going to go for it anyway.)

You can find the report within the agenda on the Vale’s website here: http://democratic.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=507&MId=1980&Ver=4 Scroll down to item 6. Once the minutes are published, you can see what everyone had to say to Cabinet.

Here’s what I had to say:

Vale’s report specifically refers to a ‘proven’ need for more housing than Oxford can accommodate.

Although I understand that Oxford isn’t being seen to be doing enough to help itself, as far as I’m aware there isn’t any legal provision for determining if any declared need is ‘proven’ or not. When the Oxfordshire Growth Board’s process for handling disagreement reaches its effective limit, the issue is dropped into a filing cabinet and nothing further is done. I would encourage the Growth Board to re-address this problem amongst yourselves. Personally, I expect Oxford will do little more that it has already done, and their neighbours will have to provide. It puts to question the meaning of ‘cooperation’.

I, and my Lib Dem group, remain opposed to piecemeal removal of bits of the Green Belt for housing development. We still seek a proper, independent and public Green Belt review, where the questions asked are honestly answered. There’s no sign of that forthcoming.

How can the various districts begin to consider options to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need before we have a completed Green Belt review, particularly, as in the case of the Vale, where Green Belt land is being considered as an option to meet the unmet need?

Once the number of extra houses neighbouring districts must build is ultimately agreed, then what? Where would the houses best be placed? To divide them equally between the four neighbouring districts seems amateurish, unfair, and ineffective. I’ve been reading that City’s housing need is greatest near their employment sites, on the eastern side of the city. That should be a consideration in deciding how best neighbouring districts can together meet the need. Consideration of proximity to jobs and provision of transport is relevant. If we build somewhere other than on the eastern edge of the city, then Oxford needs a modern and effective transport system to get people from home to work, not a old system (even an expanded OLD system) that continues to rely on the over capacity A34 and local roads.

And finally, housing need is explicitly not an exceptional circumstance that would allow for developing the green belt. If we needed green belt land in order to meet SHMA figures, then that fact should have been considered as a constraint when determining Vale’s housing targets for the Local Plan. What evidence has Vale produced to support the case for exceptional circumstances that would support development on the Green Belt?

The Oxford Times covered the story: http://m.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/13582632.Applause_as_Vale_council_are_warned_not_to_destroy_villages_for_new_Oxford_homes/

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.

Planning Policy for Botley – 3 things

A Development Brief for Botley. Vale started work on this in April 2015 (through a consultant, BDP). Years ago, Doric and Vale said they’d do one, but it never happened. A Development Brief would inform future Botley development by capturing community views of what’s needed and what matters. Vale decided in late June 2015 (don’t know why) to instead create a…

Supplementary Planning Document for central Botley. This document, once adopted, becomes a proper planning policy, containing the long term vision of what Botley needs. The area is wider than the Doric application covered; the term is longer than just the next few years. This process involves a public consultation and feedback before the final SPD is approved by Cabinet. Once adopted, this SPD will have weight for planning decisions in this area. Consultation is expected between the end of July and the first week in September 2015. There was some question about how the work on this SPD would sit alongside the ongoing work on the…

Neighbourhood Plan for North Hinksey, which includes the Botley Central area (but not any areas of Cumnor Parish). This situation, with the NP progressing simultaneously with the SPD, is unique. It’s a valid question to ask how each will influence the other.

The SPD will be completed first, a continuation of the work on the nearly-completed Development Brief, with adoption expected in autumn 2015. That is just ahead of when we expect the Mace planning application to be submitted, in which case the SPD would have weight in determining the Mace application.

An SPD is always linked to the currently adopted Local Plan, so this SPD will be created roughly in accordance with the saved policies of Local Plan 2011. When the new Local Plan 2031 is adopted, the SPD will have to be revisited to ensure it is in accordance with the new Local Plan.

Here’s the hierarchy of planning policies:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Policy Guidance
Adopted Local Plan (currently the saved policies from LP-2011)
Adopted Neighbourhood Plan
Supplementary Planning Documents

The Neighbourhood Plan should be developed to be roughly in accordance with the NPPF and the currently adopted Local Plan. If it’s discovered there’s a conflict between the NP and the adopted SPD, or the adopted Local Plan, then the NP will be re-visited with expert help from Vale planning officers.

All this leads me to conclude that the most important thing at the moment is the SPD, because it’s likely to adopted first out of all the policy docs. The community’s contribution to this SPD is both important and urgent; consultation is expected to begin the last week of July, and the policy will be in force for years.

How to make a planning application decision

Only properly trained councillors may serve or substitute on the Planning Committee. So we’ve been undergoing the required training.

Here are the policy priorities for deciding whether planning permission should be granted or refused.

NPPF. (National Planning Policy Framework) This has a bias in favour of sustainable development. In the current situation where Vale doesn’t have a 5 year supply of housing land identified, basically every location is sustainable unless it’s the middle of nowhere. Vale tends to focus heavily on ease of access to transport and shops. I’ve not heard any attention paid to environmental sustainability, and Vale continues to build houses in areas with poor air quality. (I’m not clear if all of the official Planning Guidance docs issued by government are considered part of NPPF, for this purpose. I suppose they are.)
Local Plan. Right now, we do not have an in-force local plan. We only have some saved policies from Local Plan 2011 – this is our OLD Local Plan. The saved policies have all been determined to be in accordance with NPPF. These saved policies are currently our only local plan policies.
Neighbourhood Plan. A few communities have an adopted Neighbourhood Plan. A few more have begun the process of creating a neighbourhood Plan. You can see about it on the Vale website, although the information is out of date. http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy/neighbourhood-plans
SPD. (Supplementary Planning Document). This Vale webpage explains what SPDs are, but the info is out of date. http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy/local-development-framework/supplementary-

Planning Enforcement is YOUR Job

And my job. It’s everyone’s job.

When a planning application is approved, it has conditions attached. Sometimes these conditions are that plans must be approved before a certain action can be taken, such as, ‘all car parking must be in place prior to occupancy of the first flat’, or that new materials must match existing. Sometimes it’s a lifelong constraint, such as ‘this annexe may not be used as a separate dwelling place’, or ‘this hedge/tree must be preserved and maintained’.

The Vale Planning Enforcement team does not proactively track conditions to ensure that they are being upheld. I understand that they USED to, but with budget cuts many years ago, this service was stopped. These days, Vale relies on the public to report planning enforcement issues. I don’t think very many people or parish councils know that. I didn’t know it until last year.

Planning Enforcement is one of the most requested services from the Vale. Unfortunately, people usually wait a long time before finally contacting Planning Enforcement, and do it as a last resort, when remedy is often more difficult.

I have an idea that I’m discussing with each of the local parish councils. (You can read about it; it’s item 4 in the District Councillor Report for June 2015, on my blog.) Parishes and residents could track the conditions of each approved planning application, and contact the Planning Enforcement team directly when something goes wrong. It’s fairly straightforward to capture the info; the published decision notice includes all the conditions. We could list those on a parish website, and keep it up to date by periodic review. After the development was complete, only the longer term conditions would remain. This could be an accessible source of community knowledge and awareness, and serve as a foundation for a community scheme for residents to become the eyes and ears of planning enforcement.

My offer is to help set this up in each parish that’s interested. What do you think?

Seacourt Retail Centre – my comments 2015

I’ve just submitted my comments for the current Seacourt Retail Centre planning application:

I write as the local Vale council member from this area.

Previous permissions have had two relevant conditions that this application seeks to change:
1. Planning permission is required for sale of food and drink.
2. No more than 10 retail units, none less than 465 sq meters.

In addition to those two points, the other key issues are the closure of the petrol station, new access via the A420 slip road, and pedestrian access.

Closure of the petrol station: I commented on this in 2013, and recognised at that time it was a business decision not a planning one. But now, with the in-force NPPF and its focus on sustainability, there is a clear need to consider the environmantal effects of the closure of the petrol station. There are no other petrol stations nearby, and this closure will have the negative effect of adding a lot of extra drving along the A34. That seems relevant to environmental sustainabillity measurements.

New access via A420 slip road. I think this is a welome change, however, I think there should be a signalled controlled entry somewhere into this centre, for cars, cycles, and pedestrians. The current access near the A34 flyover on West Way is congested, the road narrows there so that the buses must merge temporarilty with cars, and there are no pedestrian crossings. It’s most difficult to leave Seacourt from there, particularly to turn right onto West Way.

Pedestrian crossing to access this centre. The nearby west bound bus stop is just east of McDonalds, at the Old Botley North Hinksey Lane junction. There is no controlled pedestrian crossing there, and it’s 5 lanes of heavy traffic. If there is to be a major retaill centre here in Seacourt, some sort of controlled pedestrian and car access should be provided. Perhaps fix the major signal controlled intersection to provide safe pedestrian crossing between McDonalds and Seacourt Retail?

Re: increase from 10 to 12 units, some of them smaller than is currently allowed. I think I accept their argument that this would cause no harm. However, this restriction has been on this site for many decades, so I’m prepared to be convinced otherwise. Have small business owners nearby been consulted?

Re: sale of food and drink. In all my reading I didn’t find anywhere that argued why this constraint should be lifted. It was put in place to protect the food and drink businesses in Botley and Oxford City centre. It may well be true that conditions have changed since the constraint was first imposed in 1986. But I’d like to see the argument. It appears from the drawings that the stand alone business closest to the A420 slip road is to have tables outside, so I assume a restauraunt business. More info is needed before I would be happy to say yes to a food and drinks business in this location.

Seacourt Retail Centre – my comments 2013

In 2013, I submitted comments about the proposed demolition of the petrol station at Seacourt Retail Centre. This is from 28 Feb 2013:

It’s understandable that residents don’t want to lose the last remaining petrol station within miles. It’s also understandable that this is a commercial decision and beyond the control of the planning department. However, it points out a policy problem: that in this day of green concerns and over-congestion of our roads, the removal of this petrol station has a large and negative impact on the community. Such an impact *should* be part of the concern and responsibility of Planning. That it is not is a policy problem. I agree with the resident who points out that this project and the West Way redevelopment are an example of a failure of joined up thinking. When I spoke to Doric about it at their open house, they were unaware of the Seacourt Retail property vacancies and plans. Is this something that, had we had an effective neighbourhood plan in place, could have been managed better? Could we have identified the petrol station as a vital community service? Anything the Vale can do to encourage the developers to keep the petrol station would be gratefully looked upon by those of us who will have to drive miles out of our way on the A34 or Botley Road to buy petrol
once it closes. There’s been no opportunity from the developers for a community consultation on the loss of this service, which is too bad.

To my knowledge, no action has been taken to consider, in policy terms, the impact of the loss of the last petrol station, and its effect on miles driven to fill the tank. There is still no joined up thinking across Botley in terms of retail offer. Our next planning application for West Way will probably still have development suggestions that could be better positioned at Seacourt Retail, with its ample parking and site remote from people’s houses.

Local Plan 2031 Part 1 – Inspector’s Examination in Public

The Examination in Public (usually referred to as EiP) of the emerging Local Plan 2031 Part 1 is scheduled for the week commencing 21 Sep 2015.

We expect to get notification of the process and who will be invited to testify sometime in late June.

The timetable reproduced below is taken from the Local Development Scheme on Vale website. All info relevant to the Local Plan is on this page. (http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy)

As you can see, it has already slipped by a few months. What was planned for June-July is now Sept-Oct.

As a reminder, there are 3 things in the Local Plan the Lib Dems object to:

Housing development in the Oxford Green Belt
SHMA figures accepted as housing targets in Vale, without regard to constraints
Botley’s ‘central area’ being defined by one developer’s aspiration from their failed planning application.

Debby Hallett

Vale of White Horse Councillor for Botley & Sunningwell