Category Archives: Planning Applications

81 Hurst Rise Rd – My Comments

Here are the comments I filed for the planning application at 81 Hurst Rise Rd.

I write as the local councillor for this area.

In considering raising the roofline of any uphill property, I think particular sensitivity is required to the loss of sky and sunlight to the downhill property. In this case, the downhill property is also to the north, and so will suffer from this loss of light. The homeowner there has provided compelling photographs to demonstrate the impact.

Please note is is recommended in Vale’s Design Guide that windows of habitable rooms be 12 meters away from the flank of neighbouring house. And habitable rooms must be 21 meters away from each other if they overlook. In this case, there seem to be existing bedrooms that are too close already. We can’t remedy that, but we should be certain not to add to the design problems.

Is it the case that previous work on this house was not carried out to the plans that were given permission? What was the outcome of enforcement action then?

The proposed windows in the roof are velux roof windows, so would not (I think) be a window that one could stand and peer out of. As such, they are not objectionable.

But the loss of sky and sunlight and daylight appears to me to be considerable, and I think the design should be re-addressed to see what can be done to allow the applicant his exta room and still preserve daylight inside number 79.

13 Cumnor Hill redux: my comments

Here are the comments I submitted in April 2015 to the most recentl application for flats on 13 Cumnor Hill. And this was no April Fool’s joke! And I intend to follow up on the request in my last pargraph.

APPLICATION WEB COMMENTS FORM
Location : 13 Cumnor Hill Oxford OX2 9EU
Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling and annex. Erection of a part two-storey,
part one and a half storey principal building containing 6 x 2 and 1 x 1 bed flats and a
one storey building containing 1 x 2 bed and 1 x 1 bed flats. Improvements to
existing access and provision of 9 parking spaces. Cycle parking, bin storage and
landscaping. (Re-submission of refused application P13/V1860/FUL)

Cllr Debby Hallett
01 April 2015
I write as the local member of the Vale council for this area.

VOWH has adopted a new Design Guide within recent weeks, and the section
on rural and lower density areas explicitly pertains to Cumnor Hill. Those design
criteria are a valuable checklist with which to evaluate this application. Height,
mass, how this design will fit into the area, density, parking location and
screening and design principles, etc. are there to ensure our communities’
development is managed well. This highly visible development must conform to
the Vale’s design standards.

Car parking on this corner of Hurst Rise Road and Cumnor Hill has been a
problem for years. Our County Councillor, Janet Godden, working on behalf of
local people, managed to get the county to provide that white stripe on the
kerbs nearest the corner, to ‘suggest’ to drivers that they park further back from
the intersection. These days, the west side of Hurst Rise Road is nearly always
parked up, essentially turning HRR into a one-lane road there. It’s at best a
nuisance, at worst, a danger. This corner needs to be double yellow striped.
That would improve the safety of any access to this property from HRR.
I object to this application on the grounds that it doesn’t confirm to our Design
Guide, parking there is dangerous (although that could be addressed), height
and mass and scale are inapprorptiate for this area, and the buildings are too
close to the neighbours.

Please could the Vale publicly address the issue of the oft-repeated request
from parish council(s) and residents for a proper drainage study for Cumnor Hill
area? What would be the cost of that? What approaches has the Vale
considered, and why has nothing been done or discussed? Does the Vale
agree that it would be agood thing to do?

My Wins in Planning

I spend time thinking about why people should vote for me.

The main thing I’m proud of is that I’ve been an effective councillor in helping people to object to or fight against unreasonable planning applications. The biggest success was, of course, the  fight against the Doric plans for West Way. Many hands made light the work.

Jerry Patterson, most recenlty the Vale councillor for South Hinksey, said of me:

[Debby]quickly acquired a grasp of how the planning system works, and has helped many Botley residents with planning issues…

Learning about how the planning process works was the most diffcult task I undertook. The process isn’t documented anywhere, and I had to learn how it works by asking questions. If I was asking awkward questions, it was even tougher. I once asked the Cabinet Member for planning if I could have a flow chart of the process, so that I could better help resident to understand how it all works, and the points in the process where they could have an effect on the outcome. He rolled his eyes at me. lol!

I learned how the planning timetable works, so can now I can help people to know the right time to get invovled and how to present your concerns so that they have a better chance of being heard.

I can intervene when things aren’t running along as they should, to get updates or encourage actions or decisions.

I learned that many of my assumptions about how things worked simply weren’t true. For example, I assumed all members of the planning committee read all of the Comments posted on the planning website. Of course, they don’t. They can’t. There wouldn’t be enough hours in the day. So they have to rely on the planning officer’s synopsis and they take it for granted that the planning officer has understood the details of everything. Of course, the planning officer  doesn’t always get it right. They couldn’t. Same problem of not enough hours in the day.

So I learned how to draw committee’s attention to what I think are relevant concerns and to link them to policy and guidelines.

We’ve had some successes when we work together as a community and a councillor.

  • Greenacre – 3 refusals
  • 26-28 Westminster Way – Refusal
  • Bovis Homes – some helpful conditions attached to approval
  • Doric’s Plans for West Way – refusal
  • Little Dene – some helpful conditions attached to approval
  • 13 Cumnor Hill – refusal
  • 54 Hurst Rise Rd – 3 refusals, and at least one withdrawn
  • Oxford Brookes University Master Plan – withdrawn

If I’m re-elected, I plan to continue to help residents more effectively resist bad developments.

One particular problem I’ve noticed was highlighted by the Inspector on an appeal against the  refusal at 26-28 Westminster Way. She pointed out that there’s a confusion between the County’s parking standards that define a maximum number of parking spaces (a policy intended to encourage lower car-ownership rates by under-provision of on-site parking) and local reality checks that need a minimum number of car parking sapces (a view that’s intended to ease on-street parking congestion). These two intentions work against each other. I’d lke to open discussions with Vale Planning and County as Local Highway Authority, and see what can be done.

 

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett  and Emily Smith (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.

Doric Appeal their Refusal

Doric officially lodged their appeal today against the decision to refuse their West Way planning application. This was expected.

You can read the Vale press release here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/news/2014/2014-12/west-way-appeal

We’ll all be notified of the details — dates, deadlines and things like that. Best opinion at the Vale is that it won’t be heard until after the election. (That’s 7 May!)

So for now, our Main Thing is to have a wonderful holiday break!

13 Cumnor Hill – a win for the people

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!

West Way Design Review Panel meeting

A panel of consultant architects met on 3 June at Botley Baptist Church to review the West Way designs.

There were 5 on the panel: four architects and one who was taking copious notes from which the report will be generated in a couple of weeks. This wasn’t a public meeting, but rather a part of the professional consultations the Vale Planning Department holds for major applications. The Vale invited me to attend as an observer. (It was SUCH a challenge at times for me to be silent.)

All in all, I counted 28 people in attendance. I had thought no one from Doric was there (it was all Mace, plus consultants who had worked on the designs for Doric). But I’m informed Mr Fasier of Doric arrived late and was somewhere behind me, so I didn’t see him. Actually, I may have seen him, but I wouldn’t know him; I’ve never met him that I know of, and he’s not exactly been visible in the neighbourhood.

Anyway.

In the morning they took a tour of the site. In the afternoon, we saw Mace’s presentation, and the panel asked questions.

Here’s a sample:

– Why student housing?

– What does the community feel about this proposal?

– Isn’t this more of an urban design planned for this suburban area?

– What about the experience of residents of Arthray Road? How can you help to make this less of a bad experience for them?

– It’s hard to understand what’s the front and what’s the back.

– panel members thought the parts that show on the street front (I can’t recall the jargon, but it was pervasive) were too varied, too messy and not showing enough distinctive character. They thought this plan could be plunked down anywhere, and they asked made it distinct to Botley.

– Concern about the big tower at the corner of Westminster Way and West Way, which implies an entrance, but there isn’t one.

– Concern about the one community building with three uses: church, community hall and residences.

– Isn’t ‘the box’ too big for the site (referring to the size of the food store building)?

– I assume you have a food operator in place? (Answer from Mace: Yes. I was surprised, since we’d heard from a senior Vale officer that there was as yet no commitment but late stage talks ongoing.)

I spoke with Stuart Walker at the coffee break, and he 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.

You can see the artists’ sketches on Dorics website: http://www.doricproperties.com/botley/. On the day they had a fly-through presentation I hadn’t seen before. I’d like them to put it up on their website.

I’m watching out for the report — I think it will be interesting. Doric/Mace took much of the panel’s comments on board, and I bet we will see some changes.

 

Doric File Environmental Statement for West Way Plans

On Tuesday, 3 June 2014, Doric filed their long-awaited Environmental Statement with the Vale Planning Department.

The statutory consultation runs for three weeks, or until the 24th of June. Any comments received by that date are sure to be considered. You can still comment after that date, but as time goes on and the planning officers reports get more complete, the weight of comments’ influence diminishes.

So, get them in by the 24th of June. If you can’t make that deadline, get them in as soon after the 24th as possible.

You can see the HUGE Environmental Statement (including a Non-Technical Summary) and register your Comments on the Vale website here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P13/V2733/FUL

The docs are in the folder called 2014-06-03 Environmental Impact Assessment.

To file your comment, click on the Orange button Comment Now.

Or, you can see a printed copy at the Botley Library or the West Way Community Concern Shop in Elms Parade.