Doric’s Deeply Unfortunate Scheme (letter)

I had a letter from a resident this week that I thought provided such an excellent precis of this Doric/Mace/ToryVale/WestWay situation, that I asked them if I could publish their letter here. They said yes, but declined attribution.

Dear Cllr Hallett

I moved to Elm’s Rise with my partner three years ago. It’s a lovely place to live. I’ve found the politics of the place and the Council’s apparent priorities to be, shall we say, rather surprising after living in {snip}. Your communications have been tremendously helpful to my awareness of the issues we face living here.

Sadly, but inevitably, I will now rant on about Doric for a little bit!

Thanks for the update about the revisions to the West Way centre application, for posting Mace’s patronising and self-important response to a constituent on your blog and for the work you are putting in to try and get some sense around this deeply unfortunate scheme. I’ve found the behaviour of the developers absolutely jaw-dropping in its unprofessionalism and contempt for both the local community and sensible planning. Sadly I’ve found it impossible to work out whether the failings of this scheme are due to negligence on the part of the DC or the hubris of inexperienced developers. A good measure of both I suspect.

Looking briefly at some of the documentation in the revised plans a couple of things struck me. In their EA they discounted the refurbishment of the existing centre because a large supermarket would impact the current centre. Now they provide a Southampton University/Tesco report that supports large supermarkets as beneficial to current centres, I think to justify their traffic projections, but ironically evidence for exploring the popular option that they discounted in their EA.

Then they state in the response to the Design Review that the quantum of uses is necessary because of the complexity and scale of the project, thus implicitly refuting objections to scale or evidence of need; a complexity and scale which by all accounts has been pushed only by themselves.

And they’ve provided the planning ruling on the massive out of town development at Rushden Lakes. So I guess in some way at least they acknowledge what this has never been about the redevelopment of a local centre.

So frustrating.

Doric Docs – all in Dropbox to share

Throughout today, I’ll be downloading all the Doric docs for this current amendment into a Dropbox folder.

If you use Dropbox, and would like access to these drawings and docs, send me the email you use for Dropbox and I’ll share the folder with you.

Doric’s latest amendments are online

They just came up on the website this morning, and are still undergoing checking and re-organisation. You can see them here in the Amendments folder: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P13/V2733/FUL

I think one good place to start is with the Design & Access Statement Addendum here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/dynamic_serve.jsp?ID=328297503&CODE=05CE7BB6C9CA1A96204DEF38D05F51BA

Although there are typos and some errors of fact (the Design Panel was on 2 June 14, not 18 June 14 as this doc states), hopefully they aren’t anything material. Further study will show if there are important errors. If you find glaring errors that might bear on this planning decision, bring them to the attention of Vale officer, or to West Way Concern, who will be sure it’s handled.

But this doc lists all the changes, and plots them on a site map. It also explains the reasons for the changes.

Deadline for comments is officially 29 Sept, but there is some leniency in this. So plan for that date, and don’t worry too much if you go over by a few days.

Letter from Agent for 50 Laburnum Road

Here’s a letter that wasn’t posted to the planning website until I requested it today. This is about the application to build flats on the corner of Laburnum Rd and Lime Rd, specifically concerning the latest set of amendments.

Check out the agent’s response to the county’s requests:

Laburnum Lime 2014-08-15 – Email from agent

Letter from Mace

Here’s a letter from Mace, sent in response to a letter from Jill Cottee and Mike Meldrum, residents in North Hinksey parish.

This is posted with permission of both the writer and the recipeints.

Mace letter 15 Jul 2014

North Hinksey Lane Street Closure

The North Hinksey Lane Service Road will be closed for their street party from 1pm to 10pm on 6 Sept 2014. Notice of North Hinksey Street Closure

West Way Update – 18 Aug 14

I just spoke to Stuart Walker, our planning officer for the West Way application.

Doric/Mace’s amended plans are expected by the end of this month. Once they are received and checked, they’ll be published and then another three week consultation begins.

“Burger’s”

Timeframe is now looking like planning committee will hear this toward the end of October, if all goes well.

My comments for the AQAP consultation

Here’s what I said in my comments in the consulation for the Air Quality Action Plan. Consultation continues through the 15th of August.

See the draft AQAP and comment here: bit.ly/1iYyP5J (If you haven’t previously registered on the Consultation portal, you’ll need to do so.)

I could have just referred them to my previous blog posts.

Do you have any comments on the actions proposed?

At the most recent Scrutiny Cttee meeting, it was made very clear that the only area where air pollution currently exceeds the EU threshold is Botley. (There was some confusion and error about Marcham, but that is being handled separately.) Abingdon does not currently have air pollution above the threshold, so no action is required there.

I represent the people of Botley, and I have been asking for this Action Plan for the past year. For that long wait, we are rewarded with only one suggestion about how to improve the air quality where I live: build a higher wall between the A34 and homes nearby. A disappointing effort that couldn’t have taken more than an hour to produce.

For Botley, surely professionals in air quality management would have more suggestions?

There are many, many potential solutions for Abingdon, where the Cabinet member has said no probem currently exists.

I’ve heard some councillors sigh as they shake their heads. ‘It’s very hard.’ Yes, it is. Low hanging fruit has alreeady been plucked, and now the brave work has to begin. in my opinion, it is not an option to do nothing. Excess pollution affects peoples health and lives. In fact, aren’t we legally lliable to take mitigating action? The Vale must seek collaboration from the other stakeholders and find some solutions.

Are there any other actions that we should pursue?

Plant lots of trees. Trees are demonstrably successful at absorbing air pollution between roads and houses.

Ban polluting vehicles from the A34. Have them go round the ring road.

Promote in some creative way low emmmission vehicles.

The report says pollution comes from the A34. It’s not clear how this is known, beyond it being the obvious source. (Certainly the poluuted areas are next to the A34). What about diesel vans on Westminster Way?

Ban HGVs and LDVs on Westminster Way.

Slow down traffic on the A34.

Put a cover over the A34 to contain pollution and treat it before expelling it into the air.

Have a solution contest and give a good prize to the best idea.

Get the view of experts. We aren’t unique here in Botley. Surely there is something that can be done.

Hotel Maria Elena

Hotel Maria Elena logged their supportive comments about the West Way Plans.

You really should read these. Seriously. Go take a look.

They are still on the Vale website for West Way planning application. I’ve downloaded them to Dropbox, because I figure as soon as someone in authority sees the content, they’ll be taken down. So this is, like, a civic duty.

From 24 July, bit.ly/1p7f3p0

From 26 July, bit.ly/1nnR7Zi

Local Plan Consultation Results?

16 July 2014 full council meeting.

Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councill Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy:

The Vale consulted on its draft Local Plan 2029 in February 2013. How many responses were received, and could the Cabinet member please tell me when the consequentional changes made to the first draft Local Plan 2029 will be made public, and how he intends to highlight what has changed between the drafts?

He said, and I scribbled:

Report was published Feb 2014 that told us 2340 reponses from 500 people and organisations. The next draft will be published later this year. The consequential changes will be part of that draft.

My supplementary question:

What does the Cabinet member see as the purpose of his Local Plan Consultations? That is, what is the overall intention of Consultations?

He repeated the official line, that’s it’s to get opinion of the public to inform decision making.

My bet is that Doric’s contribution to the Local Plan 2029 we consulted on will still be in there, in spite of many of us reponsing that it wasn’t our vision for Botley.

I’ve also sent a query as to the status of Oxford Brooks University’s Master Plan. It was in the first draft as a Supplementary Planning Document, but was put on hold in July 2013.