Category Archives: West Way Development

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?

Trapped in Botley

I fear Botley is now trapped into a development larger than is needed or wanted.

Doric agreed to pay gazillions for West Way Shopping Centre and the land over by Grant Thornton, the library, Seacourt Hall and Baptist Church. In order to make their purchase financially viable, Doric must build a large development to ensure they make back a suitable profit on their investment.

Here’s what’s happened so far:

Lib Dem Vale administration offers for sale Site 1 of West Way area (corner of West Way and Westminster Way), with a mind to investing some of the profits in updating the West Way Shopping Centre.
Election 2011 brings Tories to power in Vale.
Vale decides to sell Site 1 to Doric (after the top bidder was eliminated).
Doric also wants Site 2, so Vale decides to sell that too, a month later. Doric agrees to pay a gazillion pounds.
In the land sale contract, Vale stipulates some development constraints: supermarket, medical centre, replacement community hall, library and Baptist Church.
Doric begins to consult on a plan to develop Site1 plus Site2 plus the larger area of central Botley (Elms Parade, Vicarage and Field House).
The community gets its first inkling of what’s going on, and erupts in mass objection to the demolition of the heart of Botley to build an eight story block of student accommodation, super store, multiplex cinema and bars and clubs.
Months later (and thousands of hours of hard work by community members) , on 3 Dec 2014, the planning committee unanimously refuses permission.
Doric have until 20 Dec 14 to appeal this refusal, or the contract is terminated. So they appeal.
A few months go by with no progress.
In March 2015, Vale Leader Matthew Barber announces that Doric are willing to withdraw their appeal in exchange for an extension of the planning approval deadline by a year or more. He is minded to accept the offer, to give Doric a second crack at the whip. There is no opportunity for the community of Botley to object or offer another solution.
Basically, Doric says, “We will save you the expense of defending council’s decision to refuse permission, if you will give us another year or so to meet a less stringent requirement.”
So now Mace, who bought half of Doric, are planning another application. Mace say it is a smaller footprint, excluding Elms Parade, the Vicarage and Field House. But the sales price has not changed: it is still a gazillion pounds. Only now Mace have to make a much smaller space just as economically viable. “How will they do that?”, is a fair question.
How can this possibly work out for the benefit of the people of Botley? We are trapped in a deal to sell the centre of Botley for a price that will require a huge development in order for Doric/Mace to make back their investment.

In a perfect world, the Vale Leader would have consulted with the community back in 2011-12 before he decided to sell to Doric for regeneration, and then ensured the subsequent proposal upheld Botley’s status as a local service centre. Or, he could have played by the rules of the game that he defined in the first place, and cancelled the contract when Doric failed to get planning approval. #FairPlay

I think this:

Doric offered to withdraw their appeal because they knew that had only a very small chance of winning it.
Vale Leader accepted Doric’s offer because he didn’t want to defend their planning decision. #WinWin
There was the cost of defending against the appeal (we’re always hearing from the planning committee members about the cost of appeal).
And there was the desire for the capital receipt from the sale.
After all, it was always a conflict of interest. Cabinet and Senior Vale officers are in favour of this development; it wasn’t likely they’d decide to defend the planning decision to refuse it.

Had Matthew Barber taken his opportunity to end the Doric Deal when planning permission was refused, he could have opened the bidding to developers who wanted to work with the community to improve the face of West Way to provide the local services and shops that Botley needs and deserves. But probably the sale price would have been half a gazillion, so less profit.

So, are we are trapped into a behemoth of a development plan, driven by developer greed and Vale profit? I hope not. I do so want to be wrong.

Doric Withdraw Their Appeal

The Vale planning website has posted a brief letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 29 Apr 15. The letter notifies the Vale that the West Way appeal filed by Doric has been withdrawn.

Doric demanded that Vale change some of the terms of the sale contracts, including the date by which they must have gained planning approval. In exchange, they would withdraw their appeal. The Vale Leader conceded.

So the misery goes on.

In 2011, one of the first things the new Tory cabinet did was decide to sell West Way and the nearby properties to Doric, in full knowledge that Doric wanted to demolish the whole centre of Botley. They did this despite getting advice from paid consultants that the project was full of risk and could well be the wrong thing to do.

One of the last things they will do in this administration is to change the terms of the sale contacts to give Doric another chance. This is NOT fair play for Botley. The community played the planning game by the rules, and we WON the refusal. We’ll never know if we also could have won the appeal, but we think so. That would have ended the current contract, and we would have been able to start again with something more suited to the needs of the local community. But the Vale’s Tory Leader decided to move the goalposts, change the contract (in ways we don’t know) and extend the dates, giving Doric another chance. Once again, we begin a Doric deal in secrecy without knowing the changes the Vale conceded.

And Tories are claiming credit for success in West Way in their campaign literature. I think this stinks.

Have We Seen the Last of Doric?

Peeling signs in West Way. Imagine tumbleweeds and whistling wind down an abandoned road.

Have we seen the last of Doric in these parts? Maybe. Maybe not.

When the Vale planning committee unanimously refused Doric’s plan on 3 Dec 2014, it triggered a series of events and decisions that will have a long term effect.

Doric filed an official appeal just before Christmas. If they hadn’t done this, the contact conditions would have failed to be met, and the sales contract ended. Doric wanted to continue the fight. The Vale now had to decide what to do.
Vale Leader Matthew Barber changed his tune. All of a sudden he said he was on the side of the community. But he wanted to renegotiate with Doric, because basically he still wanted the redevelopment to go ahead.
Leader Barber called a series of meetings designed to bring Doric/Mace and the community together. Invited: parish council(s), local Vale councillors, Tory Cabinet members, Mace representative, West Way Community Concern.
Mace announced they would be taking the lead from here, not Doric. They said they will lead the community discussions and consultation. (So, maybe we’ve seen the last of Doric?)
Leader Barber said he wanted to extend Doric/Mace’s sale contract in order to allow the developers time to come back to the table with a new planning application.
Mace’s new planning application would be for a smaller site, limiting redevelopment (no longer calling it ‘regeneration’) to the original ‘site 1’ and West Way Shopping Centre.
Removed from their plans are the Vicarage, Field House, and Elms Parade. These are the properties that Vale Tories said they would seize by using compulsory purchase orders, which local people felt was absolutely unacceptable.
In exchange for extending the contract, Mace said they would withdraw their appeal. (I haven’t yet seen evidence that they have done that. 17 Apr 15)
Leader Barber needed to make that decision before the end of March, when election purdah began. Councils cannot make decisions with a political overtone (or undertone) during purdah.
He decided to extend the contract between Doric and the Vale. (So, is Doric still involved? There’s been no sign of the principals.) He annouced his decision on 13 Mar 2015. I published his decision doc previously.
Work has now begun to coordinate community consultations that will inform a new planning application. Realistic timelines are that a new application wold be determined by maybe Feb or Mar 2016. But that timeline is yet to be decided.
Nothing of any note is expected to be accomplished until after the election on 7th May.
(No sooner did I write item 12, than I had a notice from Vale Planning Policy department informing me they’ve hired a consultant to run the Botley Development Forum, and that they may start as early as next week. I’m not sure about their timing. There’s an election on.)

In my opinion, the people won this battle, but the war continues.

Had Leader Barber not extended Doric’s contract, the appeal would have gone ahead. Maybe. Doric/Mace may have decided it wasn’t worth the money and effort and withdrawn their appeal anyway. Or, the inspector may have dismissed it. Doric have a poor track record when it comes to the completeness of their submissions in the past, and the Inspector may not have been as kindly in offering second chances to Doric. Even if it went to appeal, the inspector might have agreed with the planning committee and the community, and that would have been it.

I’m disappointed that Vale didn’t fight for what was right for Botley and choose to defend their own planning decision. However, that would have taken quite a bit of courage and sophistication. Was it realistic to expect that Leader Barber, who for years has been decidedly and publicly pro-Doric, would be able to change his colours and lead a successful legal defense of the Vale’s refusal of this application? I don’t think so. Especially as now we know that he decided to give Doric/Mace another chance and extended their contract for at least a year.

It may well be that this was the best deal we could expect from the Vale Tories.

If the election outcome on 7 May leads to a change in administration, then we might be able to radically change the course of the future of central Botley. If not, I expect we will still see a proposal that gains a net loss in local shops, in exchange for Mace’s pet schemes: student housing and multi-plex cinema. I hope I’m wrong about Mace’s plans.

Are Doric gone for good? Well, they’ve done no website updates, Facebook posts or Tweets since 2 December 2014.

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

Mace get a contract extention

In March, Vale council Leader, Matthew Barber, took a decision to extend the dates on the West Way contracts of sales, to give Mace another year or so to submit another planning application.

These are images of the actual decision. Click on each to make it larger and easier to read.

I’ll write more later.

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

Goodbye to Doric?

If you haven’t heard, in March, Mace, speaking now on behalf of them and Doric, have promised to withdraw their appeal against the planning refusal the Vale handed down in December. (I haven’t seen anything that tells me they’ve actually DONE this yet, but they have publicly said that they will.)

Mace have taken over as the public face of the plan to purchase West Way Shopping Centre and revitalise it. They have promised to leave unmolested Elms Parade, the Vicarage, and Field House. Of course, the landowners of each of these properties is free to make their best deal with any developer, but now Mace assure us that there will be no seeking of Compulsory Purchase Orders.

But Mace want to submit another planning application, one that will redevelop the West Way sites 1 and site 2 only, and to work closely with the community to find a solution that meets everyone’s needs. In order to do that, Matthew Barber has to agree to extend the contract dates. As it stood in the orignal contracts, once planning permission was refused, and there was no appeal or the appeal failed, that was the end of the deal.

I was seated at the table next to Chris Church, one of the co-chairs of West Way Community Concern, as we listened to Matthew Barber tell us this nearly incredible news. We looked at each other, and whispered, ” We won!”

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!

Re-examining our beliefs

I just had a lovely phone call to thank me for all the work I’d done on West Way. The caller was surprised at the committee outcome, but observed that all the councillors at the committee meeting were attentive and wanting to make the right decision. (Except for one who seemed to be falling asleep. But that one did raise the hand to say, ‘Against’, so never mind.)

Lots of people seem very surprised at this result.

Lots have people have expressed their beliefs about this West Way scenario. Here are some things I’ve heard or read in the past weeks and months:

Vale will ensure planning permission goes through
It’s a done deal
I don’t trust any elected councillors
Vale must be corrupt, to decide on an application where they benefit financially
Vale are about to lose Botley to Oxford City so they have to get their money out of it
There’s a conspiracy between the Vale and Doric
All councillors are crooked
Money in it for the councillors
Party politics decide everything
No democracy in the Vale

Did you think any of these things, or perhaps others I haven’t mentioned? If you did, what do you think now?

I think a surprise result in life can be an opportunity to examine your beliefs. What exactly were you suprised at? Please take a look at that. Why were you surprised? What belief did you hold that was shown to be mistaken? Where were you wrong? Is there anyone you need to apologise to? Is there anyone you need to forgive? Is there anyone you need to thank?

Hey. I don’t mean to lecture you. I mean to share with you what I do in the face of a surprise. Things that have surprised me around this include:

Doric turning in sloppy designs and data. Even the slide they left up for most of the planning meeting had “Botley Distrct Centre” [sic]. They did finally update their drawings to change “Burger’s” to “Signage”. If these minor matters caught my eye, the major goofs were caught by objectors.
Doric lying about me and refusing to make it right. I consider myself a pretty square shooter; I expect to be met the same way. That was surprising, disappointing and made me angry.
Doric failing to realise how offensive they were being. Their reference to Botley as a ‘brownfield’, needing ‘regeneration’. Calling it an exciting plan. Saying universities were excited, residents were excited, businesses were excited. That surprised me. I expected more of a realistic, pragmatic approach instead of a deep-pocket PR machine.
Cllr Batts continuing to support Doric in spite of such huge opposition from the community he was elected to represent. I still don’t get that. And why he used his time at the committee meeting to give us a history of West Way. A surprise, and a puzzle.
That all the supermarkets said they weren’t interested, and Doric maintained until the end that they had one on board.
Matthew Barber refused to consider that he had made a bad mistake in choosing this deal and this developer, and to look for viable exit strategies.

Other things disappointed me. But that has more to do with me having unrealistic expectations of others. I can learn from that too. But that’s more than compensated for by the thousands of ways my expectations were exceeded. What a great community to be a part of!

I wasn’t surprised at the final result. I did a lot of talking to a lot of people and felt fairly sure the committee would do the right thing. Botley is a lot like Grove (v near Wantage) in size and purpose; we are the two Local Service Centres of the Vale. And those committee members who were unfamilar with Botley first hand, were defo familliar with Grove.

I didn’t feel confident to come out and say I was optimistic on the night (OMG, what if I was wrong?). But I DID say to those around me, “I am hopeful.”

What have you learnt about yourself or your world from this experience? I’d like to hear if you’d like to share.

West Way – Planning Committee supported Botley

The Planning Committee met on Wednesday night to consider Doric’s plans for Botley and decide what our future will look like. Or, WON’T look like, in this case. Doric’s plans were refused unanimously; the final vote was 13-0.

I have a lot of thoughts about the whole process, and what I’ve learned, what this community and West Way Community Concern have learned. I saw so many courageous and compassionate people live up to very high expectations, and some people not manage to do that at all. Some people were able to put party politics aside and come to just and fair conclusions; others weren’t. Some people had a lot of influence behind the sceens, and won’t get enough recognition for it. Others were visible and did their work out in the public eye. Everyone played their part and we got the right result.

At the end of it all, we got to see what people stand for. And the result was heartwarming; most people stand for community, for localism, for democracy. They stand for kindness, and fairness, and effectiveness. Even the poor Vale Cabinet decision making couldn’t destroy a vibrant community.

Do you have high expectations of people to step up, when called, and do the right thing? I do. Generally those expectations are met. There are very few people who simply want to hurt others (I’ve seen those too) but most people want to help others and to do the right thing. These people deserve our thanks.

I’m so pleased at the outcome. At the same time, I want to explore the path we took so that the good and effective practises we learned in this effort (was it a year and a half?) can be assimilated into the next Main Thing.

It’s not often I get to see karma within a short enough timespan to recognise it. This was gratifying.

West Way Development Forum – My Questions

17 Nov 14 Update. I received the answers. Mostly, they tell me that my questions aren’t material planning considerations. Of course I know this; they are material community concerns. Our second greatest fear (after the fear of them demolishing the centre of Botley to build this behemoth) is that they will build it and it will fail, leaving us without the resources we need to support our little community. Therefore it’s relevant to us whether they have a food store operator, whether Mace are the student housing operators due to the fact that no other operator would take it on (because the universities have said they won’t send their students here!), whether they’ve consulted with stakeholders outside Vale of White Horse, such as Oxford City, or the two universities. They say in their docs that this development is not for the benefit of Botley or the Vale, but to benefit the City of Oxford. Therefore, they should have been working closely with the city and both of the universities to create a solution. They didn’t talk to either of them. Here you go. Have a read.

Botley Questions from Cllr Roberts and Cllr Hallet 13 11 _1

On 7 October 2014, Vale Planning Officers hosted a Development Forum for the various stakeholders of the West Way Redevelopment scheme to come together to get questions answered.

On the night, we ran over the alloted time. Those of us toward the end of the agenda asked our questions, but there wasn’t time to answer them there. We were promised a written reply from Doric within 10 days. I haven’t had my reply yet, and have now chased it, twice. Most recently, I’ve been promised I’ll have my answers next week.

I thought you’d be interested to see what I asked.

West Way Questions for Tues 7 Oct 14

It appears that no Oxford City Council reps have been invited today. ES Vol I claims that student housing in Botley would be a Major Benefit, city-wide (not for Botley). There is no evidence that Oxford City Council has been consulted at all on the student accommodation. Why are none of those stakeholders present here?
What discussions have been held, with whom, at Oxford City Council about this plan, and with what outcomes?
What discussions have Doric/Mace held with the two universities regarding demand for 525 student rooms in Botley for their students, and with what outcomes?
Doric say frequently the reason for student housing in Botley is to free up family homes currently occupied by students. What is their estimate of the number of student houses in Botley – thinking of their recent Saville Report?
Could Doric/Mace comment on affordability of their proposed student housing.
Specifically, what level of rent, at 2014/15 prices, would Mace expect to be charged for (a) a room in a cluster and (b) a `standard’ studio, and for what length(s) of contract?
Oxford City policy requires that developers of new student housing contribute a sum to affordable housing elsewhere in the city. Vale has no such policies, because we have no policy for student housing, because we don’t have student housing here. How does the applicant see their responsibility to offset this high number of student housing with contributions to the true housing needs of the community? How is proposal not an attempt to circumvent City Policies by building in Botley?
SMP p.6 states that the development `has been designed and configured to provide communal space for the students upon the podium.’ Given the size of the proposed student population, how is this compatible with the piazza area being for the whole community?
What’s the biggest building in Abingdon, and how does this plan compare in height and length? Wantage and Grove? These are the two biggest centres in the Vale.
Who is the food store operator?
Who is your student housing operator? When I Googled “Graduation Management Services” I got no results.
How big is the superstore compared to Waitrose in Abingdon? (It’s hard for average person to visualise what 8100 sq m actually looks like, but most of us have been to Abingdon Waitrose.)