Author Archives: admin

Homelessness Strategy – consultation deadline 14 Jul 2015

Here’s the letter I had from Vale about this important consultation. Please take some time to read it and respond. ~debby

Dear Sir/Madam,

South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils invite you to comment on a draft strategy which proposes measures to prevent and relieve homelessness across the districts.

The purpose of the consultation is to seek views on the aims, objectives and actions that we are proposing.

We would very much appreciate any comments you may have on the attached draft strategy.

A summary of our strategic aims and objectives appears on page 18 of the strategy, followed by the proposed action plan on pages 19 to 34.

How to give your views

To tell us what you think about the attached draft strategy, please complete our online form by clicking ‘start survey’ below.

https://consult.southandvale.gov.uk/public/southandvale/health_and_housing/hous/joint_homelessness_strategy_2015-2020

The consultation runs from 16 June to 14 July 2015.

What happens next

We will consider all responses to this consultation and refer to this evidence when finalising the Joint Homelessness Strategy.

Further information

If you would like further information about this consultation or the Joint Homelessness Strategy, please contact Phil Ealey, Housing Needs Manager, phil.ealey@southandvale.gov.uk  or 01235 547623.

 

Seacourt Retail Centre – my comments 2015

I’ve just submitted my comments for the current Seacourt Retail Centre planning application:

I write as the local Vale council member from this area.

Previous permissions have had two relevant conditions that this application seeks to change:
1. Planning permission is required for sale of food and drink.
2. No more than 10 retail units, none less than 465 sq meters.

In addition to those two points, the other key issues are the closure of the petrol station, new access via the A420 slip road, and pedestrian access.

Closure of the petrol station: I commented on this in 2013, and recognised at that time it was a business decision not a planning one. But now, with the in-force NPPF and its focus on sustainability, there is a clear need to consider the environmantal effects of the closure of the petrol station. There are no other petrol stations nearby, and this closure will have the negative effect of adding a lot of extra drving along the A34. That seems relevant to environmental sustainabillity measurements.

New access via A420 slip road. I think this is a welome change, however, I think there should be a signalled controlled entry somewhere into this centre, for cars, cycles, and pedestrians. The current access near the A34 flyover on West Way is congested, the road narrows there so that the buses must merge temporarilty with cars, and there are no pedestrian crossings. It’s most difficult to leave Seacourt from there, particularly to turn right onto West Way.

Pedestrian crossing to access this centre. The nearby west bound bus stop is just east of McDonalds, at the Old Botley North Hinksey Lane junction. There is no controlled pedestrian crossing there, and it’s 5 lanes of heavy traffic. If there is to be a major retaill centre here in Seacourt, some sort of controlled pedestrian and car access should be provided. Perhaps fix the major signal controlled intersection to provide safe pedestrian crossing between McDonalds and Seacourt Retail?

Re: increase from 10 to 12 units, some of them smaller than is currently allowed. I think I accept their argument that this would cause no harm. However, this restriction has been on this site for many decades, so I’m prepared to be convinced otherwise. Have small business owners nearby been consulted?

Re: sale of food and drink. In all my reading I didn’t find anywhere that argued why this constraint should be lifted. It was put in place to protect the food and drink businesses in Botley and Oxford City centre. It may well be true that conditions have changed since the constraint was first imposed in 1986. But I’d like to see the argument. It appears from the drawings that the stand alone business closest to the A420 slip road is to have tables outside, so I assume a restauraunt business. More info is needed before I would be happy to say yes to a food and drinks business in this location.

Seacourt Retail Centre – my comments 2013

In 2013, I submitted comments about the proposed demolition of the petrol station at Seacourt Retail Centre. This is from 28 Feb 2013:

It’s understandable that residents don’t want to lose the last remaining petrol station within miles. It’s also understandable that this is a commercial decision and beyond the control of the planning department. However, it points out a policy problem: that in this day of green concerns and over-congestion of our roads, the removal of this petrol station has a large and negative impact on the community. Such an impact *should* be part of the concern and responsibility of Planning. That it is not is a policy problem. I agree with the resident who points out that this project and the West Way redevelopment are an example of a failure of joined up thinking. When I spoke to Doric about it at their open house, they were unaware of the Seacourt Retail property vacancies and plans. Is this something that, had we had an effective neighbourhood plan in place, could have been managed better? Could we have identified the petrol station as a vital community service? Anything the Vale can do to encourage the developers to keep the petrol station would be gratefully looked upon by those of us who will have to drive miles out of our way on the A34 or Botley Road to buy petrol
once it closes. There’s been no opportunity from the developers for a community consultation on the loss of this service, which is too bad.

To my knowledge, no action has been taken to consider, in policy terms, the impact of the loss of the last petrol station, and its effect on miles driven to fill the tank. There is still no joined up thinking across Botley in terms of retail offer. Our next planning application for West Way will probably still have development suggestions that could be better positioned at Seacourt Retail, with its ample parking and site remote from people’s houses.

Local Plan 2031 Part 1 – Inspector’s Examination in Public

IMG_1562The Examination in Public (usually referred to as EiP) of the emerging Local Plan 2031 Part 1 is scheduled for the week commencing 21 Sep 2015.

We expect to get notification of the process and who will be invited to testify sometime in late June.

 

The timetable reproduced below is taken from the Local Development Scheme on Vale website. All info relevant to the Local Plan is on this page. (http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy)Local Plan 2031 Pt 1 timeline

As you can see, it has already slipped by a few months. What was planned for June-July is now Sept-Oct.

As a reminder, there are 3 things in the Local Plan the Lib Dems object to:

  • Housing development in the Oxford Green Belt
  • SHMA figures accepted as housing targets in Vale, without regard to constraints
  • Botley’s ‘central area’ being defined by one developer’s aspiration from their failed planning application.

Changes to City 4 Bus Routes

Their webpage title says, ‘Improvements to your city4’. That’s a matter of opinion. And perspective.

Here’s their announcement: http://city.oxfordbus.co.uk/news-service-updates/city4-changes/

City 4 timetable May 2015.jpg

Click on photo to make bigger

The 4A, which I use to travel between Botley and Oxford City centre, is reducing from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. I remember a few years back when they made the change from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes, ‘To improve reliability’. I think a bus was no more likely to show up after the change. I wonder how they measure their reliability on these routes? Maybe I should ask.

I discovered long ago that if I had an appointment in the centre, I needed to go really early. I needed to take the bus before the one I actually could take because the bus was likely to not show up on time, or at all. So now I either have to go into town more than an hour ahead of time, or drive in (if my appointment is important).

The plusses: every 30 minutes to Wootton (which is the same service as to Oxford), for all of us who commute to or from Wootton. And the 4C from Wood Farm will deliver you to the rail station forecourt, but no longer comes to Botley.

Hey, I’m cynical and grumpy today. See the schedule via the link above, and decide for yourself if these changes are really ‘improvements’ for your bus travel enjoyment.

Goodbye to the last petrol station in Botley

The last remaining petrol station in Botley is to be demolished. The BP station in Seacourt Retail Centre is to be taken down as part of the next phase of improvements there. It was covered in a recent Oxford Times story.

A planning application is in consultation with the public. You can see the details and leave a comment for the planning officers on the Vale’s planning register. The deadline for comments is 11 Jun 2015. A decision is expected by 11 Aug 15.

There have been (at least) two previous applications approved (2011, 2013) that included demolition of the petrol station. At the time of each of those, there was some objection by local people to the closure of the BP station. The probem is that once this station is closed, our nearest opportunities to fill our tanks are at Peartree, Heyford Hill, or in Oxpens Road in Oxford (near the rail station). That’s quite a few miles to drive, and quite a contribution to the extant congestion and pollution. In two of those options, you need to navigate the A34. That’s one of the most congested roads in the country. If you are heading south, you travel through the Botley AQMA, with its illegal levels of air pollution. Or, you must travel into town on the bumper-to-bumper Botley Rd. When something goes wrong there, it can take an hour or more to get to the petrol station in Oxpens Rd and back.

The main problem is that loss of a petrol station is not a material planning consideration. It’s not a planning decision; it’s a business decision, between the landowners and the owners or operators of the petrol station.

Planning policy gives some protection to pubs as a community asset, but apparently none to the last petrol station in the area. That seems short sighted to me, especially in this age of environmental legistaltion in all kinds of areas. I think the policy needs to be changed. But I’m unaware that any policy body is looking at this. (I had thought to see if we Lib Dems could do something about changing this policy. But we lost the election.)

In the years since we’ve been aware of the plan to remove the petrol station, no organised community activism has come to light to try to save it, that I’m aware of. I think now it’s too late and this is a done deal. I’d love to be wrong.

 

 

81 Hurst Rise Rd – My Comments

Here are the comments I filed for the planning application at 81 Hurst Rise Rd.

I write as the local councillor for this area.

In considering raising the roofline of any uphill property, I think particular sensitivity is required to the loss of sky and sunlight to the downhill property. In this case, the downhill property is also to the north, and so will suffer from this loss of light. The homeowner there has provided compelling photographs to demonstrate the impact.

Please note is is recommended in Vale’s Design Guide that windows of habitable rooms be 12 meters away from the flank of neighbouring house. And habitable rooms must be 21 meters away from each other if they overlook. In this case, there seem to be existing bedrooms that are too close already. We can’t remedy that, but we should be certain not to add to the design problems.

Is it the case that previous work on this house was not carried out to the plans that were given permission? What was the outcome of enforcement action then?

The proposed windows in the roof are velux roof windows, so would not (I think) be a window that one could stand and peer out of. As such, they are not objectionable.

But the loss of sky and sunlight and daylight appears to me to be considerable, and I think the design should be re-addressed to see what can be done to allow the applicant his exta room and still preserve daylight inside number 79.

I’ve been elected! Thanks! But …

Count Board Vale 2015

Click on photo to enlarge it

Yesterday was a mixed bag of emotions.

Emily Smith and I were elected to the Vale of White Horse District Council, for Botley & Sunningwell. We had a few hundred votes over the candidate in third place, and I thank you most sincerely for your support, whether it was helping to deliver or on polling day, or voting for me.

But we lost many experienced and dedicated councillors, who have served so well. That’s painful in a couple of ways: friends and family who were wrenched out of their seats, for whatever reason, are a great loss personally; and we lost many people with expertise on subjects where we needed them: planning policy, Green Belt, leadership, and the long view of history in the Vale council. All members of the Vale Scrutiny Committee lost their seats, except me. We lost our Leader and our Chairman. Those of us who remain to form our new Lib Dem Group, will meet soon to prioritise and see where we can best have influence.

In Botley, we did better than elsewhere. Emily Smith and I are elected for Botley & Sunningwell. Dudley Hoddinott and Judy Roberts are elected for Cumnor. Bob Johnston is elected for Kennington and Radley; Bob has been involved in planning for years, so that knowledge is saved. Then there are Margaret  Crick and Helen Pighills from Abingdon, Catherine Webber from Marcham, and Jenny Hannaby from Wantage. Emily Smith bucked the national trend in taking her seat from the Tories.

I’m going to take a break for a couple of days. And then Council work begins on Monday.

Here’s what I wrote last night just before going to bed (I posted it on Facebook):

I’m very pleased to have kept my seat in the Vale of White Horse. Alas, the Lib Dems are now only 9 of the 38 councillors, so a small group, and we will have to pick our battles. We lost many hard working, compassionate and committed councillors. Our friends and colleagues.

The win by the conservatives throughout the land surprised just about everyone. But we Lib Dems support the ideals of democracy, and so here we are.

I’m a Liberal Democrat and proud of the party, the people in it, and all we’ve accomplished.

Now, here in the Vale, we will move on with the plans for development that the Tories have put forward, including in West Way Botley, the Oxford Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I’m disappointed, and admittedly do not understand why we’ve voted for this.

I’ll stand up for Botley & Sunningwell and work to get the best we can for all of us.
Thank you from my heart for all your kindness, enthusiasm, and support.

Government must take “immediate action” on air pollution

The UK supreme court ruled last week that the new government must take immediate action to deal with our illegal levels of air pollution in Britian.

See the Client Earth article here: http://www.clientearth.org/news/press-releases/uk-supreme-court-orders-government-to-take-immediate-action-on-air-pollution-2843

I wonder what this will mean to the Vale of White Horse? It’s been an ongoing struggle for the past four years to get the Tory cabinet member to deal with the AQMA in Botley. Maybe this will finally be enough motivation.

Or maybe there will be a change in the Vale administration this week.