Author Archives: admin

34 North Hinksey Lane – my speech to Cttee

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.

 

OxLEP’s SEP refresh consultation

Say what??!

The Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP) plans to ‘refresh’ their Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and hold a public consultation. Here’s my note about it all:

OxLEP is a quango whose purpose is to promote economic growth in Oxfordshire. Their premise is that “Growth is Good”. They essentially bid for big money from government to support large infrastructure projects in Oxforshire.

See more about them here: http://www.oxfordshirelep.org.uk/content/about-us

OxLEP are not democratically elected; they were formed by Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Their strategy doc is the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), published in 2014. They state in their FAQs doc for this upcoming consultation that they did not consult the public before publishing the original SEP, because they ran out of time.

(There is a saying making the rounds on Facebook this week: Instead of saying ” I don’t have time” try saying ” It isn’t a priority for me”. How does that feel?)

They are ‘refreshing’ the SEP, and holding a public consultation. See their SEP refresh FAQs doc here: http://www.oxfordshirelep.org.uk/sites/default/files/SEP%20Refresh%20FAQs%20Final.pdf

The SEP is the source of the anticipated jobs growth figures that underlie the astronomical housing figures in the SHMA. I think the jobs growth figures are unevidenced (that’s what I’ve been told, and I haven’t seen any evidence myself.) LEP claims the housing figures are nothing to do with them, but come from SHMA. That’s disingenuous, because the housing need figures are based on the SEPs jobs growth figures. All of this has led to the local plans to grow Oxfordshire such that the equivalent of two new Oxfords must be built in the next 15 years. Local authorities’ plans to permanently remove large swathes of the Green Belt land from protection are based on SEPs jobs figures which are based on something the public has never even seen.

This SEP is being ‘refreshed’. And they will hold a public consultation on the refresh between mid-April and Mid-May. But the refresh doesn’t visit all of the SEP contents, so this is a consultation on a part of the SEP. They will not be revisiting their numbers, as I understand it. So the figures that led to the SHMA figures will remain as they are without any pubic consultation.

There is a steering group listed in the FAQs doc for this consultation. All district councils are included, except Vale of White Horse. I think this is an error, and that since Anna Robinson sits on that group, and she works for both SODC and VWHDC, that Vale IS represented. I’ve just today asked OxLEP for clarification on this. I also have a provisional meeting with Anna Robinson next week about this consultation.

Within the FAQs doc, notice the schedule for the consultation, and particularly the time allowed after the consultation for results analysis and consideration of how the consultation will inform any changed to the SEP. There are three working days between the end of consultation and first draft publication of the consultation report. Three days. That gives a pretty clear view of how seriously they take their responsibility to consult. Looks like a box ticking exercise to me. As usual, I’d like to be proved wrong about this.

I am encouraging Lib Dems throughout Oxfordshire to promote openness and transparency in this consultation. The bigger aim is to do what we can to ensure OxLEP fairly represents Oxfordshire’s needs for future growth.

Here are some of my thoughts:

  1. The public deserves a meaningful say in growth targets for Oxfordshire; they’ve had none so far, and this consultation doesn’t include the growth figures.
  2. As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, there has never been a debate about LEP’s SEP in any Local Authority Council or Cabinet.
  3. In addition to economic growth, there are also social and environmental considerations that lie at the heart of decision making about sustainable growth. How are these consideration being included?
  4. We think a growth strategy should have a full (and meaningful) public consultation.
  5. We think a growth strategy should have an Strategic Environmental Assessment.
  6. We think the SEP consultation should include access to the evidence base supporting the SEP’s strategy.
  7. How can SEP be evaluated without knowing what infrastructure is required and whether it’s deliverable?
  8. At their workshops recently, their questions were closed-end or leading. We think well-formed open-ended questions provide space for any sort of disagreement with the basic principles they’ve adopted. Example questions from one workshop:
    1. Does Oxfordshire have world-leading connectivity?
    2. What kinds of connectivity are most important in seeking to achieve the outcomes linked to SEP’s vision (ie vibrancy, sustainability, inclusivity, world-leading)?

I know the public who are aware of this care about it. A lot. I intend to do what I can to ensure the consultation is meaningful. Too often, there are no significant changes that come from public responses, even when the public response is serious, fundamental, and evidence-based. I’m hoping we can have a positive impact on that and that things will get better.

 

Unitary authorities proposed by District Councils

In the past couple of weeks or so, the question of whether local government in Oxfordshire should be structured as one or more unitary authorities has raised its head with a vengeance. In 2014, County commissioned a financial study of the ramifications of forming one or more unitary authorities in Oxfordshire. On County Budget day 16 Feb 2016, county council agreed to pursue this avenue as a way to reduce costs enough to keep services going in the face of severe and continuing Government cuts.

A mere eyeblink later, the various district councils’ came forward with their own ideas, still uncosted and lacking any detail of service delivery. The district councils propose several unitary authorities across the county, plus a sort of overarching combined committee to handle issues that cross the boundaries, such as highways and tansport. See the Oxford Mail’s report here: http://bit.ly/1oSjRT0 (The comments are worth a read too.)

Here’s our (Vale Lib Dems) position:

“The Vale of White Horse District Council Liberal Democrats support the idea of unitary authorities in principle. Once there is verified information about the economic and service delivery costs and benefits of all options being considered by the Council, we will listen to the public before we determine our position on any specific proposals.”

Will you let me know what you think?

Local Plan 2031 Part 1 – hearings conclude

The inspector held 5 weeks of sessions, with hundreds of people and organisations participating, all concluding on 18 Feb 2016. He gave Vale officers quite a list of further work to do, and planning officers are working hard on that list now. The inspector’s report is expected by June 2016. We’ll know formally the next steps then.

Informally, here’s what I learned.

  • Inspector was tough on inconsistencies, policies not obviously supported by strong evidence, and where the strategic housing sites were proposed.
  • Green Belt boundaries were unclear, and Vale’s most recent map had some changes on it that he called “main modifications”. These require another public consultation.
  • Many parishes and local activist groups came to do what they could to save the Oxford Green Belt and North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) from incursion or damage. Radley PC, Kennington PC, Harwell PC, Chilton PC, Cumnor PC, Hendreds, North Abingdon Local Plan Group, SPADE, Keep Cumnor Green, Oxford Preservation Trust, Campaign to Protect Rural England, were some of the groups there. Almost every PC threatened by loss of protected land came to fight.
  • West Way Concern was there alongside me in the battle to have the Botley Central Area fairly defined, rather than simply based on Doric’s failed aspirations.
  • I made the argument against removing local playing fields from GB protection, mutually with Radley, Kennington, Cumnor PCs, and CPRE. North Hinksey also faces this threat.

I’ve posted the Lib Dems’ responses on my blog. I also posted that of CPRE regarding Green Belt boundaries, because it was remarkable. http://bit.ly/1XUHfe2

West Way consultation begins

  • You can submit Comments through the 14th of April.
  • You can see the plans and Comment online here:
    http://bit.ly/24wyEms
  • You can see the plans and get help on how to comment at the West Way Concern shop in Elms Parade.
  • North Hinksey PC will consider the plans at their planning committee meeting 16 March 8pm. Plans are available for viewing at Seacourt Hall before the meeting from 6pm and the next day. See the PC website for more info: http://bit.ly/1LpJvbm

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.wordpress.com/

Dog poo – where do you put it?

dog poo bagsDog poo can go in your normal grey rubbish bin. This is the main reason councils aren’t replacing or installing new dog poo bins in public places.

Please pick up your dog’a poo in a plastic bag, tie it and pop it into either a public rubbish bin, or take it home to put in your own bin. 

The walkers and park users thank you.

 

Unitary Authorities – Vale Lib Dem Position

“The Vale of White Horse District Council Liberal Democrats support the idea of unitary authorities in principle. Once there is verified information about the economic and service delivery costs and benefits of all options being considered by the Council, we will listen to the public before we determine our position on any specific proposals.”

 

New Homes Bonus Grants

IMG_1962Vale use an algorithm in determining New Homes Bonus Grants amounts.

One criteria is what percentage of the news homes in the larger area belong to the smaller area.

Here’s the current chart (Jan 2016).

If your organisation has roots in North Hinksey Parish, I urge you to consider how a Vale Grant might help you!

West Way Latest

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!