I’ve had some question about the way the tall buildings of the new proposal will affect the sunlight in the centre of the development, and also the houses nearby. This question is both from others and within my own mind
Mace submitted a Daylight Sunlight Assessment with their planning application. You can see it on this page. http://bit.ly/1MVyg5L
Have you seen it? What do you think? I’m going to read it now.
(PS. I think I can hire myself out as a proofreader. £20 per hour do you think?)
The community has requested scale models both times there’s been a planning application for West Way. Both times, we’ve been turned down.
Gordon Stokes has managed it with Excel, and gave me permission to post them.
Here’s a diagram of the current massing and scale of buildings in West Way. (Click on image to make it larger). The sun comes from mostly behind the buildings, especially in winter when the sun is low in the southern sky.
And here’s Mace’s proposal. (Click to make it larger, if you dare.) I’m concerned about sunlight. Remember, it comes mostly from the south, or behind, these buildings. What will it be like in the pedestrian spaces between the buildings?
Let’s look at it all from a lower elevation.
Here’s a view from lower down, as if you were maybe up above the new flats in West Way. Currently West Way Tower and Elms Court (the building that holds the Library) are the two tall buildings.
And here is Mace’s proposal. The tallest buildings are 4 storeys higher than West Way Tower. See the largest block labeled ‘student’? That’s the same height as West Way Tower.
And now let’s look at it from the south.
The houses in the foreground are on Arthray Road. The winter sun comes from behind you.
Here’s the same perspective of the new proposal. Remember the sun comes from behind you.
The Student Management Plan submitted by Mace with their planning application needs quite a bit of work.
Aside from punctuation, grammar errors and typos, there are a few errors of substance.
First, Botley Development Company (the new name of Doric Properties) are to be managing this student and university staff accommodation. That doesn’t instill confidence, as I haven’t seen evidence they have done this before. In various places in the SMP, we are to be reassured by BDCL’s experience in managing quality student accommodation. I’m unaware Doric have ever done this before.
Second, this SMP is written for halls full of teenager undergrads, who will all arrive at once in the autumn. My understanding is that much or most of this housing is intended for mature or grad students, or staff at one of the universities. It needs to be rewritten with the actual make up of the residents in mind.
Third, on site staff will need offices and facilities of their own. I haven’t seen these in the plans. Are they there and I missed them?
Fourth, an out of hours on-demand bus service between Headington and City Centre doesn’t make sense. How does that help students and staff living in Botley? This seems to demonstrate a lack of care in creating this doc, OR, confusion about where this student accommodation is to be built.
Finally, we are assured that wardens and staff will do checks to ensure no students’ cars are parked locally. I don’t understand how this will work. What will be checked? All cars parked locally against a list of registrations for cars students promised not to bring? How will that work?
I also have questions about cycle parking. If the cycle parking is not provided near the doors to accommodation, won’t students simply bring their valuable cycles into their rooms? That can’t be good.
I think the best solution at this stage is to make the approval of a well-formed Student Management Plan a planning condition (if the application is approved). My request is for the planning case officer to add this to the list of planning conditions.
As I begin the lengthy process of reading Mace’s plans, I’ve decided to post my comments in several chunks of critiques. That’s instead of saving them all to the end and putting them in one lengthy (and tiring) response. I know officers would rather we put them all in at once. I find it’s just too much to hold on to, and I become discouraged. So I’m going to approach it in a way that better suits me.
On consultations: During the consultation for the Botley SPD I had such serious concerns about procedures not being followed, that I convinced Vale to investigate it. For example, the Statement of Community Involvement says the Evidence Base is to be published before the consultation. It wasn’t, and that handicapped us from responding comprehensively. For another example, not all serious concerns got an equally serious response from Vale.
West Way Community Concern are simply the best at keeping the information and communications flowing, so you can rely on them for help whether you support these development plans or object to them. See the latest on their website:https://westwayconcern.
The Botley SPD was adopted by cabinet last week. The official date will be 27 Jan 2016 (there’s a waiting period to see if the decision will be called in).
But the Main Thing* is the planning application (and accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment) expected from Mace about 1 Feb 2016. Vale will take a few days to check it, and then the public consultation will begin. The duration of the consultation is still not known.
Please rely on West Way Concern for the latest info: https://westwayconcern.wordpress.com/
I post information and interesting links when I come across them, mostly on Facebook. My public page https://www.facebook.com/DebbyHallettLD/ doesn’t require you to be a registered Facebook user. Check there often.
*The Main Thing is to keep the Main thing the Main Things. This is an oft repeated message to myself. In other words, don’t get distracted!
The first thing that happened at Cabinet this morning (after a question from a member of the public about Abbey Meadow Pool, and then one about affordable housing at Grove) was that four members excused themselves in order to maintain the separation between property sales and planning.
Remaining were Cllrs Cox (chairing), Murray, Dickson and Lovatt.
Cllr Cox proposed to defer decision on the Botley SPD to give them time to check the various claims they’ve had of unlawful and unsound practices. Cabinet agreed to defer.
Those who had come to speak were invited to, if they liked. Dr Mary Gill spoke first. Then Dr Stephen Parkinson. Mr Neil Rowley of Savills declined. Cllr Dudley Hoddinott spoke too, after me.
I spoke, but didn’t deliver my whole pitch. My objective (the Main Thing) had been to convince them to go back, take another look and tighten up all the sloppy bits of this process. There was no point in arguing after that point was won. (They had me at “deferred”!)
But I questioned Cllr Cox about his conflict of interest in sitting on this panel. He was one of the Cabinet members who originally made the decision to sell the land to Doric in 2012.
I asked him if he could tell me the reason he did not take his seat on planning committee the night in Dec 2014 when the Doric application was determined. He said it was to avoid the appearance of bias. I asked what had changed between then and now, what made him think he wasn’t in the same situation. He said, “My hands are clean.” He said he has not been involved in the property side of the issue since those early days. I guess I’ll have to look and see if that’s the case.
When I asked about the timeline, we were told we can expect a statement “in a couple of weeks”.
At its 22 Oct 2015 meeting, the Scrutiny Committee agreed some recommendations to Cabinet regarding the Botley Supplementary Planning Document ( SPD). Committee can only recommend to Cabinet; it’s Cabinet’s responsibility to make the final decision.
First, investigate the responses (from experts who should know about these things) that point out possible issues of lawfulness. One is from Mike Gilbert about how the SPD is based on the unadopted Local Plan 2031 rather than the current Local Plan 2011. The other is from Prof Riki Therivel about the lawfulness of the Sustainability Appraisal that didn’t have robust evaluations of realistic alternatives. The aim is to reduce risk of Vale being found liable for an unlawful, unsound decision.
Second, use the reported problems with the consultation process as learning points in a review of the Statement of Customer Involvement to remedy problems and improve.
Third, committee supports the inclusion of sheltered accommodation for the elderly on the Botley Centre site.
Fourth, assess the SPD for internal consistency (so that it doesn’t contradict itself) and also that it is consistent with existing policies, such as the Design Guide 2015.
That was a win for the people of Botley. Well done to everyone who contributed to that effort.
At its on meeting on Friday 30th October, I’ll talk to Cabinet about these things, plus a couple of other things that have come to light since the Scrutiny meeting.
The couple of other things:
First, Mace sent in a response to the consultation that was missed out and wasn’t included in the consultation 
analysis. They had some suggested changes, which of course can’t be considered now. Here’s a screen shot that shows how Mace considers this SPD to be written to support the emerging Local Plan 2031.
You can wee Mace’s whole response via a link to Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lqrsy651onano8t/Botley%20-%20SPD%20reps%20letter%20Mace.pdf?dl=0
Second, the consultants were told to include phasing of any development, so that vital services aren’t lost to local people for the duration of the construction. Consultants didn’t include this.
On Friday the 30th Oct 2015, Cabinet will make their best decision for the people of Botley, knowing what Scrutiny has recommended. Probably they’ll ignore us. But that’s their right; they’re in control.
Emily Smith, presentation to Scrutiny Committee about Botley SPD on 22nd Oct 2015
Good evening Committee. I would like to talk to you about two of the concerns I have in relation to the SPD for Botley Centre. In a moment I am going to talk about height and scale, but first I would like to raise my concerns about the consultation process.
Consultation Process
It is my understanding that when there is a significant consultation on planning policy the Corporate Communications team can be involved at an early stage to ensure a well-planned and high quality consultation. Meaningful consultation is difficult. It requires clear explanation of the information being discussed and carefully worded questions to ensure reliable responses are gathered. However, this consultation missed key questions, such as ‘what should the maximum building height on the site be?’ and residents described to me feeling ‘manipulated’ by the online form asking questions in a way that were difficult not to agree with.
The consultation report in your pack, states that residents aged over 60 are ‘over represented’ among the respondents. But clearly there are lots of young professionals, children and teenagers living in Botley so why were engagement events for these groups not planned from the outset. In the end communications staff from corporate strategy and planning struggled to get groups of younger people together because the bulk of the consultation period clashed with the school summer holiday. They did squeeze a few groups in at the end, but if this had been planned earlier more could have been done and the number of meaningful responses from young people could have been higher. AND all this was going on at the same time as the Local Plan Examination in Public so Officers were difficult to get hold of during the consultation period when we had queries. To me, it all felt very rushed.
Having spoken briefly to officers it is my understanding that the Communications team had limited involvement and their recommended changes to the consultation questions were not all taken into account.
Perhaps committee could ask the Planning Policy team to explain who led on the consultation design and delivery and what the involvement of the communications team was? Did Planning Policy involve the ‘consultation experts’ from the beginning? And why was the timing of a consultation on a clearly complicated and controversial document not more carefully thought through?
Maximum Height
Height and scale was one of the main reasons the previous application by Doric was rejected by the Planning Committee. As I have already mentioned, there wasn’t a question in the consultation about maximum building height, but the comments by residents and organisations, including Oxford City Council, clearly show a strong objection to the SPD enabling another planning application as large as the failed Doric proposal for this site. So why has the maximum height not been reduced in the final version of the Botley SPD?
Allowing 8 storey buildings in a residential suburb is also contrary to existing Vale planning policies, for example:
So, again, why does the SPD allow buildings of 8 storeys when other Vale polices would only deem 4 storeys appropriate? Why the inconsistency? Are there any other local service centres with 8 storey buildings in the Vale? I am not aware of any.
I understand that whatever development happens in Botley it needs to be financially viable, for the developers and also for residents who don’t want to be left with a collection of empty retail units. However, some members of the community I represent perceive that the SPD allowing 8 storey buildings is being driven by the price the Vale are selling the land for. Clearly, if the land cost £1 to buy, viability would be easier to achieve with fewer commercial outlets on the site. The higher the cost of land, it follows that developers will need to cram more on to the site to draw customers in from places like Abingdon to make a profit.
BUT, an SPD is a planning policy document, so surely its adoption should be determined by planning considerations. This SPD should be about what is appropriate development for a local service centre in residential area, and ensuring that local people are not harmed by any planning applications that come forward.
So, what is driving the need for 8 storey buildings? How can the residents I represent, be sure that this SPD has not been influenced by the price that the Vale are selling the land for? And why, having read the consultation responses, have planning policy not reduced the maximum building height allowed in section 4.4?
In my view, the adopted Local Plan, under which this SPD will sit, is clear. Buildings in central Botley should be no more than 4 or 5 storeys high.
Committee members, please will you consider referring the SPD back to planning, so they can amend section 4.4 to bring the maximum building height of our local service centre in line with the adopted Local Plan, the emerging Local Plan, and the Vale’s Design Guide?
Thank you for listening.
Botley Centre SPD
Local Plan 2011 Map of Botley Centre (blue area)
Local Plan 2031 Map of Botley Centre
I’ve been studying what the experts say about the rules of writing a Supplementary Planning Document, or SPD.
The Botley Centre SPD has some problems. One is the boundary used to define Botley. Botley isn’t a real place, as I argued when they re-drew the Vale boundaries and created my new ward, Botley & Sunningwell. Botley is a geograhical area without a firm boundary defined; it’s not a parish. It includes most of North Hinksey Parish (arguably all of it, depending on who is arguing) and part of Cumnor Parish. It also could be argued that the part of Oxford City along the Botley Road west of Oxford is also Botley. There is also ‘Old Botley’, where North Hinksey Lane meets Botley Road.
The SPD is supposed to give more detail of policies in the adopted Local Plan 2011. Instead, it is formed mostly based on Local Plan 2031, which isn’t adopted yet, nor even examined.
Here are 4 maps of Botley: Local Plan 2011, Botley Centre SPD, and Local Plan 2031.
And then…
Just for giggles, I’ve dug out the map of Botley District Centre from the failed Doric planning application. Notice it’s identical to the map in LP2031.
Botley District Centre – map from Doric’s failed planning application
The consultation responses for the Botley Draft SPD are now published.
Some people have reported their response is missing, particularly if they submitted a letter or a paper form (rather than completing the online form). If you don’t see yours here, please let me or West Way Concern know straight away.
Every voice must matter.