On 23 Mar 16, Planning Committee granted permission for the proposed flatted development, by 6 votes to 3.  Vale officers’ view was that these flats are to be sold on the open market, so it’s a case of caveat emptor. Vale says they are providing people with a choice. I spoke to object to it, saying this:

1. Officer cites as precedence for under-provision of parking the flats down the street, built with zero onsite parking about 8 years ago. That decision led to residents parking their vehicles in streets way over the other side of the A34 flyover. And THAT led to implementing a CPZ at not insignificant cost to residents there. Delivery vehicles to the flats must park half on the pavement and half in the busy road, obstructing both.  This decision was a mistake, harming residents and the wider community, so don’t let that work in your minds as a successful precedent.
2. The officer’s report fails to adequately consider the accumulated harm from the various shortcomings:
   1. Officer points out harm to the character of the area, due to three stories in the midst of two storey structures, and unmatched styles.
   2. Officer points out that highways thought a dropped kerb in front of Oxford Sofa Studio next door was unsafe due to the busy road. Surely the same applies here?
   3. Officer points out significant noise on the site.
   4. Officer points out harm to the amenity of future residents and neighbours.
   5. Officer points out the density of 110dph is high, but doesn’t give a steer about how high or what would be appropriate for this area. Saved Policy H15 sets 50dph as an effective density within Botley centre. That policy also makes clear that high quality living environments are the most important thing.
   6. Officer points out nearby locations of other dwellings where the noise is worse. Noise and congestion on A34 continues to increase. I don’t think previously built dwellings where noise levels exceed what’s healthy should in any way be used to justify building more of them.
   7. Officer points out that amenity provision is well below Design Guide requirements. I’ve asked him to provide details to committee. In some cases, provided amenity space is only 10% of the minimum required. A 2BR flat should have a minimum of 50sqm, and this one has only 5.
   8. Section 6.37 of the officers report explicitly assumes people living here don’t want amenity space. That’s just not true. That’s like saying people who can only afford to live here don’t deserve nice, quiet, private outdoor space. No! That’s not what we stand for.

The NPPF and our local policies explicitly support high quality design in our developments. This isn’t one.

I think the cumulative harm is significant and demonstrable and outweighs the benefit of the proposals.

23 Mar 2016, planning committee refused this application. Here’s what I said on the night.

It’s my view that there is demonstrable evidence of significant harm to the community and to prospective residents of this development, which outweighs the benefits of increasing housing stock by 6.

An accumulation of harm stems from this being an over-development of the site. I have 6 points:

1. Policy DG26 says density should be appropriate to the location and respond to the character of the existing settlement . This is a semi-rural area, with an average density of 9dph. The highest nearby is 16dph. This development is 42dph.
2. Policy DG52 says roofs should be pitched unless there’s a strong justification. What is the justification for flat roofs here?
3. Policy DG69 says height and location of apartments should respond to its context. Here, an acceptable height is achieved only by sinking the buildings into the ground, but the tradeoff is a gloomy inside space.
4. Potential overlooking of neighbours has led to fixed, obscure glazed, small windows, adding to the gloom.
5. Neighbours will experience overlooking, blockage of sky and daylight, and light intrusion from cars entering the steeply sloping car park.
6. Amenity space is significantly below the minimum because retaining walls and hardstanding parking areas take all the space.  Please ask officer for exact details.

The officer’s report sums it up: it’s not in character with its surroundings, it’s too high a density, it’s too massive, it has unjustified flat roofs, and is more urban in design than its context. An overall negative impact on the character of the area.

Here’s my response to the planning application consultation for 34 North Hinksey Lane.

In it, I state that I believe the fact that the last decision was quashed by judicial review shouldn’t be a consideration for planning committee members this time. I suggest that officers shouldn’t use it nor accept it as a relevant argument to the approval of this one. I strongly believe that, in the interests of fair play, we start from a clean slate.

My previous comments from March 2014 still apply. I write as the local member for Botley & Sunningwell ward.

The fact that this application has reached planning committee for the third time is irrelevant to the committee’s consideration of this one. In order to be fair, that fact should be not in the officers’  report to committee and should be refuted anywhere it comes up as an argument in this application.  (I understand committee members rarely read the consultation comments, so I should be safe in  mentioning it here).

This is a new application, with a new planning officer, and a (somewhat) new planning committee. In fact, a good case could be made for excusing from planning committee any member who was present for the site visit that resulted in the quashing of the previous decision by the court.

I’m studying the plans, trying to envision what this development will look like when complete, and how it will affect the streetscape. I can’t exactly imagine it; applicants have previously declared their intention to put angled solar panels on the roof. That’s a fine green thing to do. But it will raise the profile of the building and make it taller than its neighbours. How much taller will the solar panels make it?

Approvals in the area over recent years have brought a mishmash of design styles and quality to North Hinksey, and not all to our benefit. We have faux art-deco flats on Yarnells Hill, modern and boxy flats on West Way that loom over the neighbouring bungalow, and three storeys of flats where residents’ balconies overlook the A34 from a few meters away. This is not evidence of quality mixed neighbourhoods. It’s evidence of lack of vision and decision making to support development that improves the quality of an area.  The more Vale allows applications for design that doesn’t respond to the character of the area, the more these outliers are used as precedent to propose even more of them.

NPPF explicitly supports a mix of housing based on demographics and need, so I can support flats in this low-density area. But NPPF section 58 demands two important things: high quality design that adds to the quality of the area, and new builds that respond to the character of the area.

1. High quality design that adds to the quality of the area. To my knowledge we currently have no standard for quality of design. This comes up repeatedly. The architects panel, is, I believe, intended to fulfil this role. But the process of review by the architect panel is so casual as to be sloppy; no minutes of what was considered, no re-check that the changes they recommend are implemented to their satisfaction, no consistency in their views (two separate reports have conflicting opinions, and their report is scrawled on a piece of scratch paper. (Others have complained about this process.) To my eye, this proposed development is a standard design to put up as many small flats as can be squeezed on a site. It’s not easy to see where there is a concern for quality of design or construction. Show me where I err?
2. Responding to the local character. This is low density, semi-rural area of large plots with semi-detached and detached homes with pitched tile roofs. A flatted development should harmonise with those characteristics. (I’ve heard planning committee members refer to the appearance of the site now: ‘Anything is better than this.’ That’s disingenuous. If more developers heard members utter this sort of foolishness, we’d have a new strategy for gaining planning approval: Partially demolish a house and leave it to nature for two years, out up an ugly corrugated tin fence and then claim your ‘exciting, bold’ design is a welcome improvement.) Note the new builds just opposite and toward Botley; these fit into the character of the area. I urge committee to pressure all developers to build in quality, but producing a design that respects the character of the area. The benefit to that is for both current residents, and also those who will live here in the future.

Other issues:

1. There will be massive soil removal, according to the plans. How does this threaten neighbouring properties? Is there history of underground water courses that will be altered in unpredictable ways by excavation such as this, threatening nearby properties as well as the viability of this one?
2. I can’t see any amenity space for residents. Where will they BBQ, or watch their children play?
3. Boundaries seem to be not correct, or at least still disputed (after two years). Vale officers could facilitate the resolution of this. It should be resolved before permission is granted, because it will be impossible to correct after the boundary has been exceeded.
4. Residents of these flats to not have right of way access across the property of 18 Yarnells Rd. This has been made clear to the applicant for two years or more, and still he insists on having it in the plan. Do not approve this. It is not good enough to come along later and try to enforce it; resolve it at the beginning and prevent it from being a problem in real life.
5. Residents of these fats will have no right to use the private Yarnells Road for anything, whether parking or bin collection. Do not allow the plans to consider this, but prevent it at the outset.

And finally, I see no reference to the Vale Design Guide, or that the applicant worked though any sort of checklist for this with officers. The Design Guide assumes a collaborative process has been followed, where officers and applicants sit down to look at what’s expected. I can’t see any evidence that’s happened.

I am encouraged by the response of the Vale’s Urban Design Officer, which I only found after I had finished struggling with my comment. You can see hers here, where I downloaded it to my Dropbox: Urban Design Officer Response

(I wonder if she responded to the Botley SPD consultation?)

To see all responses, go here and scroll down: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P13/V2428/FUL

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.

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.