Author Archives: admin

Seacourt petrol station status

I contacted the planning department after a recent SPD meeting where some people spoke with certainty that the application decision was delayed while Vale reviewed the closure of the petrol station, because that wasn’t my understanding.

The petrol closure is a business decision by the owners there (whether the landowners or the business owners, I don’t know). It’s closure not germane to the planning application so ownership isn’t addressed. (I think the reason the petrol station closure is mentioned at all is there is an element of clean-up that has some rules about it. BIMBW.)

In my consultation response for the current planning application, I raised two main concerns. One was that a condition on the original development many years ago that there was to be no food sales allowed there, so as not to complete with West Way businesses. (The planning officer now tells me that they are exploring this condition with respect to the new development, but since we don’t know what the new development will be, that’s not too clear. I expect they are looking for justification to allow food to be sold at Seacourt Retail Centre there in spite of the prohibition many years ago. There’s little joined up thinking, as we very well know.)

I also raised the problem of no controlled pedestrian access to the centre, and no signaled car access. I have no clue if they’ve explored that.

But neither of these things is the petrol station.

Over the years, there has been a lot of complaining about the petrol station closure and I’ve sing in that chorus, I claim that petrol stations should also somehow be protected as community assets; surely they are at least as important as pubs. It falls on deaf ears; Tories just use it as a way to take a personal jab at me. In a recent full council meeting, I expressed my view that it was an environmental sustainability issue for the community, that we would now have to drive miles on the congested A34 to fill our tanks. It’s eve a worse situation with the closure of the Esso in Oxpens Road. I think it’s also a constraint to how many people realistically will to their weekly shop at the new centre here in Botley. Most of us fill the tank with fuel when we fill the boot with groceries. More deaf ears.

In my opinion, if anything can be done, its via the owners there (landowners probably).

An friendly, business-based approach to the landower might gain something. Now that the Business Forum is going, maybe that’s the vehicle. (Well done on getting that up and running by the way!I hadn’t thought of the impact of this loss on local car-based businesses. Maybe that would sway the owners to think again.)

Botley Centre SPD – my view

Botley shopping area boundary from Local Plan 2011

I’m working on my response to the Botley Centre SPD. The official consultation questionnaire begins with items from page 16 (out of 34). Do they assume we all agree (or at least don’t disagree) with everything that comes before?

I’ve decided to write a letter, and go page by page, addressing each paragraph on its own. I generally feel manipulated in feedback questionnaires when they don’t ask the questions about issues I feel are most important. (Like when a holiday hotel asks you how clean the room was, but not about their provision of wifi.)

I object to undefined wording, such as ‘highly sustainable’ and ‘truly sustainable’, and vibrant/exciting/bold, ‘high quality and presigious’. And so on.

Vale’s Vision for Botley – click to enlarge

My overall view is driven by para 1.2.2. They state that the previous application was refused because of the significant level of local opposition. I disagree, strongly. The application was refused because sensible members of planning committee saw that this didn’t serve Botley’s needs. It didn’t fit the site, nor the needs of local residents and businesses. I recall Cllr Lovatt saying in the Planning Committee meeting, “Botley deserves better.” (Cllr Lovatt is on Cabinet now.)

So Vale’s response has been to enshrine Doric’s aspirations as put forward in their failed planning application into policy, such that if the same application were to be submitted again, it would be approved, based on this SPD.

I most certainly STRONGLY DISAGREE and intend to make that point as eloquently as I can. (However, I promise to restrict my use of adverbs.)

Exceptional circumstances?

I’m prepping for the Local Plan Examination, which begins on Tuesday.

National planning policy says that Green Belt boundaries can only be changed in exceptional circumstances. Policy explicitly states that housing need is not an exceptional circumstance.

Vale Tories plan to remove land from the Green Belt and use some of it for housing development.

In preparing for the Examination in Public of the Vale Local Plan, the inspector asked the Vale to explain the exceptional circumstances that support changing the Green Belt boundaries.

Here is what Vale said:

5.1.5. The Council considers that the exceptional circumstances to justify the
alteration to the Green Belt boundary are:

the need to meet the objectively assessed housing need in full within
the District,

the ability to release land presently designated as Green Belt with no
harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, and

the need to deliver sustainable development, through sustainable
patterns of growth supported by the necessary infrastructure.

Oxford Mail Issue: Should Vale build houses in Green Belt between Abingdon and Oxford?

Oxford Mail invited me to write the NO! response. It took them a bit longer than they thought it would to find someone to write the opposing view. Matthew Barber eventually agreed. (He would have to, wouldn’t he?)

Neither of us saw what the other one wrote. But there’s a surprising amount of overlap.

Check it out ( I do repeatedly send them a new, nicer photo, but they keep using these olde crone ones) : http://bit.ly/1VtmIfG

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?

My response to the 92 Arthray Rd Appeal

At the end of July 2015 I submitted my response to the appeal against the Vale’s refusal of this application.

Applicant wants to subdivide his property, creating a separate dwelling place out of an existing extension.

Officers felt it was contrary to policies about subdividing a property (this would be a very narrow property), and that the dwelling was of poor quality; lacking light, for example, due to no windows in lounge. (I don’t see any windows in bedrooms either, but maybe I’m not reading the drawing correctly.) Applicant admits in the Statement that ceilings aren’t up to regulation heights.

You can see the applicant’s Full Statement about the appeal on this page: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=FolderView&ID=472317474&CODE=B079644ADDECCBDDD1482CA87CF7AD89&NAME=Appeal&REF=P15/V0098/FUL

Here’s what I said to the inspector:

92 Arthray road Appeal 31 Jul 15

I write in support of the LPA’s decision to refuse this application. Essentially, the plan is to subdivide the house and turn the 20 year old extension, which has been used as a garage, into a separate dwelling.

H14 requires adequate living, parking and amenity space. These plans do not conform. By applicant’s own admission the ceiling height doesn’t meet minimum housing standards. Lack of windows and inadequate parking/bins/cycle space contribute to a cumulative effect of a cramped, dark space. Considering that the UK is already are known for having the smallest dwellings in Europe, that this fails to meet even that tiny minimum is a clear reason for refusal.

DC1 expects a high quality design and a fit with local distinctiveness. In this instance, the plan to convert the garage doesn’t show an intention to high quality and indeed fails to achieve it. The plot width is narrow, unlike other plot widths in the areas. Applicant argues you cant tell this from an extension. Exactly. This is the size and layout of an extension, not a separate dwelling. Wouldn’t this effectively turn the main house into a terraced dwelling?

Vale of White Horse did the right thing when it refused permission for this shed with a bed.

My response to the 50 Laburnum Road Appeal

The applicant for 9 flats at the corner of Lime Rd and Laburnum Rd has appealed against Vale’s decision to refuse permission. Applicant was previously granted permission for 7 flats there. Vale felt that 9 flats was a bridge too far, or one storey too high, as it were – that it was too big and bulky for the context in which it was sited.

You can read the applicants Full Statement here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=FolderView&ID=472269474&CODE=48B81873862BE84D5F33E1F453F7119E&NAME=Appeal&REF=P15/V0461/FUL

Applicant/Agent particularly pointed a finger at me, because I used to be a lodger there. Applicant/Agent also seems to think I had a hand in organising the community objection to this behemoth. Actually, I didn’t, specifically due to the potential that I could be perceived to be biased in some way.

So here’s what I told the inspector:

APP/V3120/W/15/3103232 – 50 Laburnum Road

I support the Vale’s decision to refuse this application for the reasons summarised in the Decision Notice and discussed in the officers’ delegated report.

I’m surprised and disappointed to learn from the appellant’s appeal statement that she never intended to build the approved plans for 7 flats, as that was too small a development to be viable. This is a significant waste of council and community time and money. There should be recourse for a LPA to take action against such time wasters.

Appellant’s agent makes it sound like I have an interest in the property. I do not. In 1997-98 I was one of three lodgers there for approx 8 months, after I arrived in this country. I moved out in August 1998, and I’ve not seen or spoken to her since. I disclosed this to the Vale planning department when the first application was submitted.

Appellant’s agent condemns organised community activism and treats community-wide objection as if it’s illegal, or immoral, or something. It’s puzzling why he would include this in his argument to an inspector (repeatedly), as if it’s a material consideration in this decision. Notwithstanding the fact that I did not organise or participate in any community-wide activism (due to my links to the applicant) , I think it’s actually useful and good for communities to organise their efforts. At planning committee meetings, objectors only have 3 minutes to make their case. Objectors therefore MUST be organised. Applicants have an obvious unfair advantage in access to planning officers and knowledgeable assistance with many meetings and discussions that ordinary residents simply do not. In fact, in this case, the LPA planning department even advised the applicant/agent during the process that this plan did not meet the criteria for acceptance, but the applicant offered no changes in mitigation.

As to the details of this application –

One main worry for me is the quality of the design, which includes (un-)spaciousness of the living areas and private amenity space for each household. Does each bedroom have a proper window? Does each flat have an outdoor space to keep and use for their private enjoyment? A patio or a balcony would suffice. A place to put up a table and chairs, or a BBQ, or for children to play? My concern is that this proposal doesn’t offer living spaces that improve the area, not only for this generation, but for all people who live here in the future. Small flats with few amenities in a large building that over-dominates this main corner of the estate is not a quality addition to the area. Vale was right to refuse.

And finally, I am glad to hear that the opinions of local people about inappropriate development in their local area are taken seriously in some cases. Localism is a real scheme, intended to empower local people to make the decisions that affect their daily lives. If local objections have raised the design and amenity standards of this profit-focussed development and made it a better place for people to live AND live near, then good.

Sunday Trading Laws – Consultation through 10 Sep 2015

Government are considering changes to the Sunday trading laws, to allow larger shops to stay open longer on Sunday.

For details on the changes being considered, and how to submit your views, see the Vale’s website: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/news/2015/2015-08/sunday-trading-hours-could-change-%E2%80%93-how-will-affect-you

This consultation is open now, and closes 10 Sept 2015.

Waste recycling strategy – Consultation through 5 Oct 15

Oxfordshire County Council needs to save money; we hear that loud and clear.

One strategy they are exploring is to reduce the number of Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) from seven to three or four.

See what the Vale has to say about it here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/news/2015/2015-08/residents-urged-air-concerns-over-recycling-centre-proposals

To learn more about what’s proposed, and make your views known, go to the County Council website, here: https://consultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/HWRCstrategy/consultationHome

Cabinet: Meeting Oxford’s Unmet Housing Need 7 Aug 2015

(I’ve edited this post after the Cabinet meeting, to include an update.)

About 25 people came to the Vale Cabinet meeting Friday morning (7th Aug 15). The agenda item was the report from head of planning about options for high level approaches to Vale’s commitment to duty to cooperate to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need.

Six spoke: CPRE, SPADE, Sunningwell PC, Radley PC, keep Cumnor Green, and I.

Cllrs Barber and Murray gamely tried to answer questions from an obviously opposed audience. I got that they were trying to reassure people that no decisions were going to be taken and this was the beginning of consultation on the subject. I also got that they see the BIG opposition to Green Belt development. (But I think they’re going to go for it anyway.)

You can find the report within the agenda on the Vale’s website here: http://democratic.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=507&MId=1980&Ver=4 Scroll down to item 6. Once the minutes are published, you can see what everyone had to say to Cabinet.

Here’s what I had to say:

Vale’s report specifically refers to a ‘proven’ need for more housing than Oxford can accommodate.

Although I understand that Oxford isn’t being seen to be doing enough to help itself, as far as I’m aware there isn’t any legal provision for determining if any declared need is ‘proven’ or not. When the Oxfordshire Growth Board’s process for handling disagreement reaches its effective limit, the issue is dropped into a filing cabinet and nothing further is done. I would encourage the Growth Board to re-address this problem amongst yourselves. Personally, I expect Oxford will do little more that it has already done, and their neighbours will have to provide. It puts to question the meaning of ‘cooperation’.

I, and my Lib Dem group, remain opposed to piecemeal removal of bits of the Green Belt for housing development. We still seek a proper, independent and public Green Belt review, where the questions asked are honestly answered. There’s no sign of that forthcoming.

How can the various districts begin to consider options to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need before we have a completed Green Belt review, particularly, as in the case of the Vale, where Green Belt land is being considered as an option to meet the unmet need?

Once the number of extra houses neighbouring districts must build is ultimately agreed, then what? Where would the houses best be placed? To divide them equally between the four neighbouring districts seems amateurish, unfair, and ineffective. I’ve been reading that City’s housing need is greatest near their employment sites, on the eastern side of the city. That should be a consideration in deciding how best neighbouring districts can together meet the need. Consideration of proximity to jobs and provision of transport is relevant. If we build somewhere other than on the eastern edge of the city, then Oxford needs a modern and effective transport system to get people from home to work, not a old system (even an expanded OLD system) that continues to rely on the over capacity A34 and local roads.

And finally, housing need is explicitly not an exceptional circumstance that would allow for developing the green belt. If we needed green belt land in order to meet SHMA figures, then that fact should have been considered as a constraint when determining Vale’s housing targets for the Local Plan. What evidence has Vale produced to support the case for exceptional circumstances that would support development on the Green Belt?

The Oxford Times covered the story: http://m.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/13582632.Applause_as_Vale_council_are_warned_not_to_destroy_villages_for_new_Oxford_homes/

Debby Hallett

Vale of White Horse Councillor for Botley & Sunningwell