Author Archives: admin

Birch trees @ 35 Yarnells Hill

Re: the two Birch trees at 35 Yarnells Hill, which are now one birch tree, which will one day soon be four birch trees.

In December, permission was sought by developer from Vale to bring one tree down. It was clear that the work necessary for the planned development wasn’t going to be able to go ahead without losing at least one of the protected trees. If machines did the digging, both trees would be lost. If the work was done manually, only one tree was sacrificed, and they’ve promised to replace it with three threes.

I’ve recently learnt that a tree protection order doesn’t particularly prevent a tree from being felled. But it requires permission to do so, and replacement. By regulation, all he had to do was agree to replace it. That he’s going to put in three trees in is a good thing.

 

Get a Vale Grant in 2016

At our first meeting of 2016, the Vale’s area committee that includes Botley and Sunningwell gave away over £55,000 to good causes. If you need a capital, revenue or festival grant, check with Vale to see what’s available.

Vale can offer over £1,000 for improvements to your village halls, community shops, play areas, sports clubs and skate parks or to buy new or replacement equipment. You can apply for up to 50 per cent of the project cost.

Vale will open for grant applications this year:

  • between 14 March 2016 and 6 May 2016
  • between 6 June 2016 and 29 July 2016
  • between 5 September 2016 and 4 November 2016

For more info: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/community-advice-and-support/grants

 

Botley SPD delivered too late

I have two major projects on the go (and several that are smaller). The Botley SPD (Supplementary Planning Doc) comes to the Scrutiny Cttee tonight for a close look. I’m also preparing for the Inspectors examination hearings (Stage 2) on the soundness of the Local Plan 2031 (where Cabinet Member for Planning Policy, Cllr Mike Murray, wants to build a few thousand houses in the Oxford Green Belt).

But for the SPD… One of the main purposes (if not THE main purpose) of the SPD is to make it easier for planning applications to be approved. The decision to create an SPD came about after Doric’s planning application was refused in December 2014. (That unanimous refusal was a surprise to Vale, apparently, as well as to Doric.)

So Vale hired a consultancy and asked them to begin with the failed planning application, and make this policy doc so the next application would be approved. (It wasn’t that bald of a brief, but in essence that’s what it was. Student accommodation and a multiplex cinema were never in the Vale’s plans for Botley until Doric wanted to build them and failed to get permission.)

This has been a great example of bad timing, or how not to manage a project.

The doc was begun in April 2015, so the officers excluded local members, due to ‘purdah’, they said. Then they forgot all about us and had to bring us in months later, once we moaned about it. #fail

The doc was first promised in June 2015, which might have helped the applicants. But it was delayed until October, and then legal questions sent it back for rework and a new consultation, and here we are in January. #fail.

It was delivered so late that the land sale contracts had to have the lawyers renegotiate the end date, because the delay by Planning meant the clock would tick down (there’s a drop dead date for submitting the planning application). #fail

The next planning application has been well underway for all that time, over a year, and the developers are having to wait for Planning to get this SPD into shape. The planning application and EIA are ready to be submitted at the end of Jan 2016. #fail

So how is it that this SPD, that might get adopted on 18 Jan 2016, will be any help at all in guiding the developers in the preparation of their plans? Well. it won’t be, because it’s too late. #fail

As soon as the Local Plan 2031 is adopted, maybe later in 2016, this SPD will have to be re-written and another consultation held. This will be long after the planning application is determined next month. It’s a waste of time, money and effort. #fail

Who thought this was a good idea? Who would think this was a viable plan for a strong policy document to help the developers and the community? Cllr Mike Murray, Cabinet Member for Planning Policy. #delay #rework #fail

Botley SPD – the 2nd consultation results

I decided to explore what the consultation responses held, and the link to those is here:

https://consult.southandvale.gov.uk/portal/vale/planning/pol/botley_spd/botley_centre_draft_spd?tab=list

The first consultation had over 300 responses; this time there are only 38. Consultation fatigue has set in. For people conserving their energy for the main thing, which is the planning application due later on this month, a second consultation on this SPD, when their first responses were largely ignored, was just too much.

Many of the respondents sent a letter (either instead of responding to the online questionnaire, or in addition to it), which can be accessed under each entry.

You might want to have a quick read of some of these. They tell quite a story.

Lib Dem Submissions Local Plan 2031 Examination

Here are our submissions to the inspector for the Local Plan Examination Stage 2. (These are all links to docs in Dropbox)

In many cases we defer to the excellent submission by CPRE. See their doc at the last link below.

Refer to this list of matters : Stage 2 Matters and Questions

Vale Lib Dems on Matter 5: Green Belt Boundaries

Vale Lib Dems on Matter 8: Housing sites and Botley Core Policy 11

Vale Lib Dems on Matter 12: Infrastructure etc

Vale Lib Dems on Matter 13: Monitoring etc

CPRE on Mattter 5: Green Belt Boundaries 

 

Botley SPD – 2nd Consultation, my response

West Way site mapToday (18 Dec 15, 5pm) is the deadline for responding to the 2nd Botley SPD consultation.

After consultation with community members, I conclude the the SPD isn’t actually a help to anyone. Not to the community, and not to the developers. Not to Vale Cabinet members or Vale officers. In fact, the SPD isn’t a benefit to anyone, that I can see. And so I will be urging Vale Cabinet to abandon it, put no further money or scarce resources into it all, and let us get on with considering Mace’s planning application as the next Main Thing.

Here’s what I’ve said to support this opinion.

This Botley Centre SPD was intended to make it easier for applicants to gain planning permission. It was supposed to do this by expanding on current policy, refining it to make clearer our local needs and aspirations so that permission could be granted to applications that met these criteria.

But the work didn’t begin from the policies in the current local plan and building possible scenarios from there. Instead, the effort began with the aspects of a failed planning application by addressing those qualities that caused the planning committee members to refuse it. The SPD should have begun from the base of the current Local Plan 2011 and how a local service centre in Botley could meet the needs of the current and future residents. Instead it has tried to retrofit the needs of a particular developer. Any careful read of the SPD will see that it doesn’t stem from local service needs, but from a developer’s need to profit from the redevelopment of the site.

This work began in April 2015 as an intention to create a Design Brief for Botley Centre, starting from those aspects of Doric’s failed application that led to its refusal. Vale hired a consultancy with expertise in design and architecture, which makes sense when creating a Design Brief. In June 2015, for some reason, the Cabinet Member for Planning Policy decided to change the aim to an SPD rather than a Design Brief, but kept the same consultant and offered no further guidance to them (that I can see). As a result, we have a planning policy document that has been challenged legally and is likely to be challenged again for its unlawfulness in terms of sustainability appraisal and creating new policy. The poor work on it has led to rework and a second consultation, and thence to a need to modify the land sales contracts to extend the deadline date for the developer. Poor work, rework, delay, legal challenges, added expense. We started from the wrong place: a failed planning application, rather than the needs of a community and the Local Plan. We changed aims mid-journey without a re-evaluation of how our activities related to our goals, and we’ve ended up with a planning document that helps neither the developers/applicants, as Cabinet intended, nor the community where this massive change is going to happen.  It’s been criticised by Oxford City, Oxfordshire County, as well as by local residents and organisations.

I refer you to the consultation response (and annexes) from West Way Community Concern, which covers the main issues. I endorse and reiterate everything they say.

Here are my major concerns, in no particular order:

  1. The Design Guide 2015 holds equal weight as a material planning consideration to this SPD (and any other SPD). The Design Guide is well considered and comprehensive. The Equalities team say they rely on its policies to provide development guidance for all things equalities related. Residents rely on it for all things design related. The Planning team should adhere to the Design Guide. If they will do that, then this SPD offers nothing further in terms of design principles and equalities considerations.
  2. The land use scenarios focus on student accommodation. Student accommodation isn’t mentioned in Local Plan 2011. It comes solely from Doric’s failed planning application. Student accommodation doesn’t support the local community’s needs of a local service centre. It supports developer profit, and thereby supports the land sale price Vale has negotiated with Doric. The SPD obviously is intended to support this developer with these plans and this land sale contract. Had this SPD been developed prior to any expected planning application, it would have looked very different, and probably would have been fairly constructed and valid.
  3. Scenarios include student accommodation for students at Oxford’s two universities. Oxford City have many planning policies regarding student accommodation, refined over their years of experience with the special challenges of providing such housing. Vale have no such policies. If we are to venture into provision of student accommodation, Vale should study Oxford’s polices and devise our own policies to inform car ownership, impact on the districts provision of affordable housing, pastoral and health service needs, special design considerations, who can live there, management plans, etc. It’s irresponsible to consider attracting hundreds of students to a semi-rural community without policies in place to guide the plans.
  4. There should be an analysis of reasonable alternatives for the site. One reasonable alternative, to do nothing, should have been included. BDP declared (in writing and to the Scrutiny Committee) that a low-intervention alterative was rejected via feedback from the community. That’s not true. The DTZ documents show that this scenario was rejected prior to any public workshops. This raises the question of the lawfulness of the Sustainability Appraisal.
  5. It’s been admitted that the SPD pays no attention to the western end of the ‘study area’ because the development interest is in the eastern end. Therefore of what use is the SPD to the Botley Centre in its entirety?
  6. In their original terms of reference, the consultants BDP were instructed to include plans for phasing any comprehensive development, in order to preserve access to vital shops and services. They didn’t do that. But the developers have come up with a way to phase construction, and have presented it to the community this month for feedback. The SPD is no help here.
  7. The consultation on this SPD has been fraught with problems. It’s a legitimate question whether there was a true intention to consult. The evidence base wasn’t published in time for the consultation, in spite of repeated requests for it. Hundreds of people spent thousands of hours of their lives studying the draft SPD to provide thoughtful, relevant and helpful responses. Vale acknowledged that they hadn’t really used any of the feedback, discounting the considered responses as ‘views of a vocal minority of older residents’. In fact, I question whether Vale officers and Cabinet member read any of the responses. At Scrutiny, much of what they heard appeared to be a surprise. It’s ironic that the response from the very developer that all this effort was meant to serve was missed out entirely and not considered in the consultation report.
  8. The issues of lawfulness identified in the lawyer’s letter in Oct 2015 (mentioned by West Way Concern in their response) were also identified in the various responses Vale received and they were also brought up at Scrutiny Committee. Vale paid no attention until a letter came from a lawyer.
  9. The site boundary in this SPD is based on the site boundary in the emerging local Plan 2031. That’s creating new policy and is unlawful. The SPD site boundary should be the one used in Local Plan 2011.
  10. There is therefore a legitimate question of whether this is really an Area Action Plan (new policy being introduced for a specific area), which requires public examination under the planning inspectorate, as opposed to an SPD which is limited to expanding existing policies.
  11. If this SPD is adopted, then once the new Local Plan 2031 is adopted, the SPD will have to be rewritten. This SPD is intended to help the next application from Doric, which is expected in Jan 2016. I think it would be a poor decision to pour more money and scarce resources into the creation and revision of this document.
  12. In order to avoid charges of conflict of interest (Vale as landowner who profits from the property sale, and Vale as local planning authority who writes policy and grants permission for development on that land), the decision makers for the land sales contracts were supposed to be kept entirely separate from the decision makers of planning policy and planning applications. That effort has failed. The Cabinet Member for Planning has been integrally involved in the land sale contact discussions. Earlier this year, discussions regarding whether to extend the contracts deadlines for another year involved both the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Chairman of the Planning Committee. This is the conflict of interest I warned about from the beginning, and was assured they were being kept entirely separate. That so-called “Chinese Wall” has proved permeable. We can help to rectify this by abandoning this SPD and not putting Cabinet members in the position of such a conflict of interest.
  13. DTZ, the consultancy hired to do the planning policy work of viability for this SPD, are the same company hired back in 2012 to do the risk assessment of the original property sales decisions. So they were working on planning policy this year while having access to the land sale contract details from previous years. That breaches the divide between property and planning.
  14. A key limitation of any SPD is that it cannot introduce new policy. I think we would be better off relying on our saved policies to determine any planning application, and abandoning this SPD as being unhelpful, of questionable lawfulness, and a waste of resources.

 

Cllr Emily Smith, on the Government’s Housing Bill

Emily headAt the Vale council meeting Weds 16th Dec, Tories tabled a motion that ‘Council endorses the Government’s Housing Bill’ (or something similar — it was much longer and panglossian (as Cllr Bob Johnson said.)

Emily Smith had this to say in her first speech to council:

The Housing Bill includes some welcome elements, such as better protection for renters from rogue landlords and new measures to bring ‘abandoned’ properties back in to use.

However, I share Shelter’s concerns that as currently drafted this Bill could actually lead to a net loss of around 180,000 affordable homes for people on low and middle incomes. The forced sell-off of council homes to fund right-to-buy discounts for housing associations will mean affordable homes currently set aside for local people could be sold on to speculators and buy-to-let landlords.

My understanding is that there is no requirement for replacement homes of the same value to be provided in the local area which could lead to the break-up of established communities and is a concern for people in rural areas especially. The Bill fails to recognise that Housing Associations will simply be trying to catch up with replacing homes rather than focussing on building new affordable homes.

The Bill seems to be driven by an ideological obsession with home ownership, but surely we still need rental homes and social housing too. We need a mix of tenures to suit people moving to the Vale for employment and affordable rents for local families saving for deposits, so that communities are not broken up. Even if everyone did want to buy a home, my understanding is the Housing Bill states an affordable home can be worth up to £450,000*. In the Vale the average salary is under £30,000. Are Cllr Cox and Cllr Murray suggesting that £450,000 is affordable for local families? [*Cllr Murray explained that the cap for affordable homes outside London is actually £250,000]

We clearly need to build more homes to the tune of 300,000 a year to have a real impact on housing availability and costs. If all the developers that have already been granted planning permission for housing got on and built them, we would probably be able to achieve that. So what does the Housing Bill offer in terms of making sure that those developers start building? Does it address the problems with supply of building materials? I am in regular contact with construction firms who tell me they struggle to recruit builders, but the Bill does not address the skills shortage we are faced with in the Vale.

And finally, we as a council have a duty of care for our most vulnerable residents and a responsibility to prevent homelessness. We have already starting to see a rise in homelessness and government changes to welfare and cuts to local government grants now threaten the funding received by homeless hostels and organisations like the Citizens Advice Bureau who help people at the bottom of the housing system. At the Housing Strategy Workshop for councillors in October, attended by many of the members here, there was cross-party consensus that the only way the Vale could guarantee that no vulnerable residents are homeless would be to increase council owned or managed housing stock. But this bill encourages the selling-off of council and housing association properties – the opposite of what we need right now.

In my opinion, this Housing Bill is ill thought through and a missed opportunity to ensure the affordable homes we need are built. It is also undermines our ability to provide for the Vale’s most vulnerable residents and low income families. Therefore I cannot support this motion to endorse the Bill as a whole.

 

Oxfordshire County Council removes all bus subsidies from 118 routes

Of course, this decision only affects the most vulnerable of us; bus riders. At least his name is on it so you can tell him what you think about his decision.

Here’s the letter I just had.

Dear Councillor,

RE: Subsidised buses and Dial-a-Ride – Cabinet Decision

I am writing to tell you about a decision made by Oxfordshire County Council’s cabinet that will have an impact on subsidised bus and Dial-A-Ride services in Oxfordshire. The council’s decision making cabinet met on 10th November 2015 to consider public feedback to the subsidised bus service and Dial-a-Ride service proposals that we put forward in a consultation held between 19th June and 15thSeptember this year, and to then make a decision about how to make the savings we need to from these services.

The Decision

At this meeting Oxfordshire County Council’s cabinet took the decision that the Council withdraw all subsidies paid to run 118 subsidised bus routes in Oxfordshire. This decision is subject to approval at the council’s overall budget setting meeting in early 2016.

A further decision was also taken by the cabinet that if the County Council’s funding position contained the necessary surplus, this surplus would, where possible, be used to subsidise bus services that prioritise off-peak services. In addition rural services would be prioritised and special exemptions made for deprived areas and school routes. This final decision would be taken at the full budget setting meeting, attended by all Oxfordshire’s Councillors, in February 2016.

The attached document ‘Cabinet Meeting Subsidised Bus Decision’ contains a list of all bus routes potentially affected by these changes and the approximate date that a specific subsidy would be withdrawn under these 2 alternate budget scenarios. Under the worst case scenario of all subsidies being withdrawn a total of nine per cent of the bus network in Oxfordshire would be effected, meaning that more than 90% of bus services in Oxfordshire will not be affected by this cabinet decision.

A further decision was taken to cease funding the Dial a Ride service as of April 2016. The Council propose to work with community transport groups across the county to try and develop schemes which can meet similar needs to those which Dial-a-Ride currently serves.

And finally a decision was also taken not to allocate resources to a specific community transport fund at this time, but instead, that once the council’s future funding position is clearer, full council would establish a broader fund available for all sectors, including the community transport sector, along with other similar initiatives. The council is in the process of collating local transport solutions that were put forward as part of the consultation process for further analysis and potential support. We encourage groups and individuals to continue to come forward to the Council directly with ideas that would address local transport needs.

Withdrawal of a subsidy does not necessarily mean cancelation of the bus route

The withdrawal of an Oxfordshire County Council bus subsidy does not necessarily mean that the service would be cancelled (or the subsidised portion of the service). Removing a subsidy does not guarantee that the service itself will cease. If the service is well-used to a profitable level, the operator may decide to continue running it without any Oxfordshire County Council subsidy (or another operator step in and take it on). It would be up to the operator to review the service and decide whether they wish to continue operating it, or modify it to try and make it profitable (for example by re-routing or modifying the timetable). Oxfordshire County Council is in discussions with operators and will encourage them to try to maintain or commercialise services wherever possible if a subsidy is withdrawn.

Supported transport savings

As part of the council’s budget setting process in February 2015, councillors reduced the overall supported transport budget by a fifth (£6.3 million). As far as possible, we are trying to make these savings in supported transport by running services more efficiently.  We have identified that we can achieve £3.7 million in savings by bringing together all the supported transport services we operate and fund.  However, this is not enough.  The council needs to find a minimum of £2.6 million in additional savings and this means looking at supported transport services which the council is not required to provide by law.  This will inevitably impact some people in the county.

Why is the council making savings?

On-going cuts in central government funding mean Oxfordshire County Council has to make savings. The council is currently in the process of making approximately £290 million of savings. Those savings began in 2010 and run until 2018. On top of those savings, the council currently believes it may need to save a further £50 million.

The consultation

Between June 19th and September 15th we ran a public consultation on proposals to change subsidised buses and the Dial-a-Ride service in Oxfordshire. In total, 2656 responses to the consultation questionnaire were received, as well as numerous emails and letters, 13 detailed submissions and 7 petitions. 275 people attended public and specific stakeholder meetings about the proposals we put forward. The level of interest in the consultation demonstrates how highly the public values these supported transport services, with many regarding them as an important part of their local community infrastructure, and finding it difficult to prioritise between different types of services. While people were understandably concerned about reducing these services, there was also an appreciation of the exceptionally hard financial situation the Council finds itself in, and the difficult decisions this requires us to make.

Moving forward

The council is committed to engaging with commercial bus companies to see if they can take on any of the effected services on a commercial basis. We also recognise that Oxfordshire’s 62 community transport schemes may take an increasingly important role in transporting those in the local communities with the greatest need. We therefore plan to focus support on this sector in the coming months and years. We are also committed to delivering a marketing and direct engagement campaign in the coming months to raise awareness and to support the growth of community transport in Oxfordshire, to increase the number of volunteers and new schemes within the sector.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message and please don’t hesitate to contact my team at supported.transport@Oxfordshire.gov.uk if you have any further queries about changes to these services.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr David Nimmo Smith
Oxfordshire County Council Cabinet – Environment
South Oxfordshire District Councillor
Henley on Thames Town Councillor

Grants Applications – 2016 windows

From Vale News in Nov 2015.

You’ve probably started thinking about projects you could do next year and the budgets you’ll need. We can offer over £1,000 for improvements to your village halls, community shops, play areas, sports clubs and skate parks or to buy new or replacement equipment. You can apply for up to 50 per cent of the project cost.

We’ll open for applications this month from 16 November until 15 January 2016.  If this is too soon for any projects you have in mind here’s when we’re planning to open next year:

  • between 14 March 2016 and 6 May 2016
  • between 6 June 2016 and 29 July 2016
  • between 5 September 2016 and 4 November 2016

For more information, visit the grants webpage or give our Grants team a call on 01235 540525.

 

Two planning appeals upheld

Two separate appeals against decisions to refuse planning applications in Botley have been upheld this week. I’m disappointed.

First, the applicant for flats at the congested and dangerous corner of 2 Lime Rd and 50 Laburnum Rd wasn’t satisfied with permission for 7 flats, and wanted 9 instead, which require another storey. Vale refused, but applicant has successfully appealed. This development is overly tall and massive, with little amenity for residents and not enough onsite parking. It’s also unneighbourly, but will certainly line the applicant’s pockets well. A poor decision, not in the public interest, but in the interest of the land owner there.

26-28 Westminster Way has also had their appeal upheld. They also had permission for flats over 3 storeys, but greedily wanted more over 4 storeys. That’s been allowed. Concers there about not enough on site parking and building residences that overlook the noisy and polluted A34.

All of these decisions have to do with the fact that Vale still do not have a 5 year land supply for housing development. Until we do, nearly all applications for housing will be approved. Prepare yourselves for even more awful and ugly developments. There is no requirement for quality, beauty or enough parking.

I asked last night at a planning training session if the priority for Vale was to achieve this 5 year land supply. I was told yes. When I asked how we were working on it, I was told that once the Local Plan is approved, we will be there. So the main strategy seems to be to wait for approval of the Local Plan? But that might not happen for two or more years! In the meantime, all our communities are being overrun with cheap as chips, over-crowded flat developments, even right up alongside the noisy and polluting A34.

It’s an astonishing failure of planning policy. Tories have had more than 4 years to get a Local Plan adopted, and we are still a long way away.