Author Archives: admin

Doric Withdraw Their Appeal

The Vale planning website has posted a brief letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 29 Apr 15. The letter notifies the Vale that the West Way appeal filed by Doric has been withdrawn.

Doric demanded that Vale change some of the terms of the sale contracts, including the date by which they must have gained planning approval. In exchange, they would withdraw their appeal. The Vale Leader conceded.

So the misery goes on.

In 2011, one of the first things the new Tory cabinet did was decide to sell West Way and the nearby properties to Doric, in full knowledge that Doric wanted to demolish the whole centre of Botley. They did this despite getting advice from paid consultants that the project was full of risk and could well be the wrong thing to do.

One of the last things they will do in this administration is to change the terms of the sale contacts to give Doric another chance. This is NOT fair play for Botley. The community played the planning game by the rules, and we WON the refusal. We’ll never know if we also could have won the appeal, but we think so. That would have ended the current contract, and we would have been able to start again with something more suited to the needs of the local community. But the Vale’s Tory Leader decided to move the goalposts, change the contract (in ways we don’t know) and extend the dates, giving Doric another chance. Once again, we begin a Doric deal in secrecy without knowing the changes the Vale conceded.

And Tories are claiming credit for success in West Way in their campaign literature. I think this stinks.

Vale Tories Promise: Regain Control of Planning

You have to laugh. Tories have had control of the Vale for four years, and they still don’t have planning under control. Here’s their campaign flyer:

Zoom in to note Item 1 in their plan, where Tories admit they’ve failed to gain control of planning.

Vote for a change.

Emily Smith, Vale candidate on 7 May

Debby says: I was elected in 2011, as one member in a two member ward. Since then, it’s felt like I was the only one working on behalf of this community. The other councillor was a Tory and so pro-Doric that he accompanied them on their radio spots; he had to recuse himself from the planning committee decision for this bias. Awhile back, he moved to the safe Tory seat of Southmoor. I welcome Emily as a candidate who has a track record of working for this community, and she will be great as a colleague! I invited her to provide an introduction.

Emily says: Few people in our ward are unaware of Cllr Debby Hallett’s efforts to defeat Doric and hold the Conservative controlled Vale to account. Debby is pro-active, hardworking and cares deeply about our community. But Botley & Sunningwell is a two member ward, so on 7^th May you get two votes in the District Council elections. I have decided to stand alongside Debby to help build on the work she has done so far and to help bring the Vale back into Liberal Democrat control.

A bit about me

I live in Botley with my husband and two young sons. I grew up in Sunningwell, where my parents still live, and went to school in Abingdon. After studying Sociology at University I worked at Oxfam then for a large project providing volunteer mentors to support vulnerable adults and young people. I am now employed by the County Council, coordinating activities to reduce youth unemployment across Oxfordshire.

I’ve volunteered for North Hinksey Youth Club, West Way Community Concern and I led the popular Campaign for Botley Skate Park. In 2013 I helped run a public meeting about how Neighbourhood Plans can benefit local communities and was elected to North Hinksey Parish Council in a by-election in 2014.

Why I am standing to be a District Councillor

Liberal Democrats have a reputation for making excellent local councillors and constituency MPs. I have been campaigning with fellow Lib Dems against inappropriate planning applications, to protect our Green Belt, and for better recreation facilities for our young people. As a District Councillor I would continue pushing for these things and any other community needs that arise, but I would have more power to make a difference.

I am particularly interested in improving consultation and communication with residents and ensuring the needs of vulnerable groups are considered in decision making. I would continue supporting communities to create Neighbourhood Plans, advocate for socially and environmentally sustainable development, and would explore new ways for the Vale to support youth services and recreation facilities.

And finally, why I support Parliamentary Candidate Layla Moran…

…because she supports our whole community. When Doric and the Tories at the Vale tried to impose the ridiculous West Way development on us, Layla was with us from the very start – going door to door in the pouring rain getting petition signatures 18 months before our Tory MP had said a word on the matter. Layla is a community campaigner and an excellent communicator. Her passion for education and commitment to policy based on scientific evidence, not populist whim, appeals to me as a parent, a public sector worker and a Liberal Democrat.

Team - Sunningwell Village Green (2) smaller

Layla Moran, Emily Smith, Debby Hallett

I have got to know Layla very well over the past two years and know she will be a fantastic MP who will work with District Councillors to push for the flooding defences, sustainable transport, quality apprenticeships and the planning reform that we need here in Botley and Sunningwell.

Please vote SMITH, HALLETT and MORAN on May 7^th. You can contact me at emilysmithld@gmail.com or on twitter @emilysmithLD.

26-28 Westminster Way – My Comments

Here’s what I submitted to the Vale planning department.

APPLICATION WEB COMMENTS FORM

Location : 27 Maple Close Botley (in the parish of North Hinksey) OX2 9DZ
Proposal : Erection of single storey side extension.
Application Reference : P15/V0527/HH – 7

Cllr Debby Hallett
13 April 2015

I write as the local council member for this area.

Speculative developers continue their greedy attempt to get just a bit more than they already have permission for. The applicant already has permission for 9 flats over three floors with only 8 parking spaces. The Local Planning Authority thought that plan didn’t have enough parking provision and that the noise pollution would make living there unhealthy. Applicants won permission on appeal.

I can only assume applicants are planning for the same again.

This new proposal is too big for the site, with 4 storeys seeking to dominate the street and also the visible skyline from the A34 as you pass by. As far as I am aware, we have no 4 storey buidling in this area.

This location is right next to the Botley AQMA. No analyses are displayed on the Vale website for recent assessments. In 2009 there was a problem just to the south of this site. In 2007, the assessment showed this site was barely below the threshold. Are there recent montoring reports? There is hopefully Vale planning policy controlling how we decide what’s appropriate to build here. With this AQMA being the worst in the Vale (more exceedences of EU thresholds, and no action plan for improving it) I think development without mitigation alongside the A34 in this corridor is irresponsible.

The inspector who reviewed the previous application for this site pointed out that the Local Highways Authority and the LPA need to get clear on our parking policies. The LHA looks at provision in terms of the maximum, seemingly to encourage transport by means other than cars. The reality on the ground is that most people in this area own cars, and a 2 bedroom flat is just as likely to have 2 cars as to have none. (Is there data for this? Car ownership in Botley?) In this particular case, there is no on-street parking available, and the corner into Arthray Rd is already difficult to navigate due to overparking.

Our current Design Guide says:

4.13.3 A balanced approach should be taken to achieve convenient parking in close proximity to households whilst reducing the dominance of car parking on the street scene.

I think this frontage, being 100% parking, is unacceptable.

It also says:

Principle DG48: On-plot parking – driveways. Front driveways in larger or urban and semi-urban schemes should generally be avoided as this necessitates wider streets, tends to have a considerable visual impact and can restrict informal surveillance. In these locations driveways should be located to the side of properties.

The LPA has a duty of care to current residents, and also to future/potential residents. Let’s not build low quality buildings (note the expternal pipes etc on the one next door) of very small rooms, without enough parking, in areas of noise and air pollution as cheap alternatives for hapless residents. Surely we can demand better than this.

13 Cumnor Hill redux: my comments

Here are the comments I submitted in April 2015 to the most recentl application for flats on 13 Cumnor Hill. And this was no April Fool’s joke! And I intend to follow up on the request in my last pargraph.

APPLICATION WEB COMMENTS FORM
Location : 13 Cumnor Hill Oxford OX2 9EU
Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling and annex. Erection of a part two-storey,
part one and a half storey principal building containing 6 x 2 and 1 x 1 bed flats and a
one storey building containing 1 x 2 bed and 1 x 1 bed flats. Improvements to
existing access and provision of 9 parking spaces. Cycle parking, bin storage and
landscaping. (Re-submission of refused application P13/V1860/FUL)

Cllr Debby Hallett
01 April 2015
I write as the local member of the Vale council for this area.

VOWH has adopted a new Design Guide within recent weeks, and the section
on rural and lower density areas explicitly pertains to Cumnor Hill. Those design
criteria are a valuable checklist with which to evaluate this application. Height,
mass, how this design will fit into the area, density, parking location and
screening and design principles, etc. are there to ensure our communities’
development is managed well. This highly visible development must conform to
the Vale’s design standards.

Car parking on this corner of Hurst Rise Road and Cumnor Hill has been a
problem for years. Our County Councillor, Janet Godden, working on behalf of
local people, managed to get the county to provide that white stripe on the
kerbs nearest the corner, to ‘suggest’ to drivers that they park further back from
the intersection. These days, the west side of Hurst Rise Road is nearly always
parked up, essentially turning HRR into a one-lane road there. It’s at best a
nuisance, at worst, a danger. This corner needs to be double yellow striped.
That would improve the safety of any access to this property from HRR.
I object to this application on the grounds that it doesn’t confirm to our Design
Guide, parking there is dangerous (although that could be addressed), height
and mass and scale are inapprorptiate for this area, and the buildings are too
close to the neighbours.

Please could the Vale publicly address the issue of the oft-repeated request
from parish council(s) and residents for a proper drainage study for Cumnor Hill
area? What would be the cost of that? What approaches has the Vale
considered, and why has nothing been done or discussed? Does the Vale
agree that it would be agood thing to do?

Botley Redline Area?

The Vale Tories used a Doric definition as their policy for Botley Central Area in Local Plan 2031. Now that the Doric planning application has been refused, another big problem with the Local Plan 2031 is clear.

I objected many times to Doric having a hand in forming planning policy. I was variously assured by senior officers that a) developers have no role to play in policy formation, and b) that it was usual and helpful for developers to have a hand in policy formation. So, which is it? Both of these things can’t be true.

Doric wanted to demolish the Vicarage, Elms Parade and Field House (after seizing them by Cumpulsory Purchase Orders that the Vale would execute, if necessary). Now that their planning application has been refused, there is to be a second plan, with a smaller footprint, which excludes these three properties.

Top two photos are from page 58 of the Vale Tories’ Local Plan 2031. (Click on them to make them bigger and easier to read.) The blue one below is the actual policy, from page 59 of the Vale Tories’ Local Plan.

This policy for Central Botley came from Doric.

Now that Doric have successfully insinuated their pipedream into the Vale planning policy via the Local Plan 2031, how will any other panning application ever be in accordance with the Local Plan? I don’t see how this can possibly work.

If the Vale Planning department and planning committee consider their own policies as material planning considerations, then any planning application for other than the original Doric redlined site would be refused. Wouldn’t it?

I wonder if there is now any way to point out this late-arising problem to the inspector? So that s/he can throw out the ridiculous policy for Central Botley.

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.

Have We Seen the Last of Doric?

Peeling signs in West Way. Imagine tumbleweeds and whistling wind down an abandoned road.

Have we seen the last of Doric in these parts? Maybe. Maybe not.

When the Vale planning committee unanimously refused Doric’s plan on 3 Dec 2014, it triggered a series of events and decisions that will have a long term effect.

Doric filed an official appeal just before Christmas. If they hadn’t done this, the contact conditions would have failed to be met, and the sales contract ended. Doric wanted to continue the fight. The Vale now had to decide what to do.
Vale Leader Matthew Barber changed his tune. All of a sudden he said he was on the side of the community. But he wanted to renegotiate with Doric, because basically he still wanted the redevelopment to go ahead.
Leader Barber called a series of meetings designed to bring Doric/Mace and the community together. Invited: parish council(s), local Vale councillors, Tory Cabinet members, Mace representative, West Way Community Concern.
Mace announced they would be taking the lead from here, not Doric. They said they will lead the community discussions and consultation. (So, maybe we’ve seen the last of Doric?)
Leader Barber said he wanted to extend Doric/Mace’s sale contract in order to allow the developers time to come back to the table with a new planning application.
Mace’s new planning application would be for a smaller site, limiting redevelopment (no longer calling it ‘regeneration’) to the original ‘site 1’ and West Way Shopping Centre.
Removed from their plans are the Vicarage, Field House, and Elms Parade. These are the properties that Vale Tories said they would seize by using compulsory purchase orders, which local people felt was absolutely unacceptable.
In exchange for extending the contract, Mace said they would withdraw their appeal. (I haven’t yet seen evidence that they have done that. 17 Apr 15)
Leader Barber needed to make that decision before the end of March, when election purdah began. Councils cannot make decisions with a political overtone (or undertone) during purdah.
He decided to extend the contract between Doric and the Vale. (So, is Doric still involved? There’s been no sign of the principals.) He annouced his decision on 13 Mar 2015. I published his decision doc previously.
Work has now begun to coordinate community consultations that will inform a new planning application. Realistic timelines are that a new application wold be determined by maybe Feb or Mar 2016. But that timeline is yet to be decided.
Nothing of any note is expected to be accomplished until after the election on 7th May.
(No sooner did I write item 12, than I had a notice from Vale Planning Policy department informing me they’ve hired a consultant to run the Botley Development Forum, and that they may start as early as next week. I’m not sure about their timing. There’s an election on.)

In my opinion, the people won this battle, but the war continues.

Had Leader Barber not extended Doric’s contract, the appeal would have gone ahead. Maybe. Doric/Mace may have decided it wasn’t worth the money and effort and withdrawn their appeal anyway. Or, the inspector may have dismissed it. Doric have a poor track record when it comes to the completeness of their submissions in the past, and the Inspector may not have been as kindly in offering second chances to Doric. Even if it went to appeal, the inspector might have agreed with the planning committee and the community, and that would have been it.

I’m disappointed that Vale didn’t fight for what was right for Botley and choose to defend their own planning decision. However, that would have taken quite a bit of courage and sophistication. Was it realistic to expect that Leader Barber, who for years has been decidedly and publicly pro-Doric, would be able to change his colours and lead a successful legal defense of the Vale’s refusal of this application? I don’t think so. Especially as now we know that he decided to give Doric/Mace another chance and extended their contract for at least a year.

It may well be that this was the best deal we could expect from the Vale Tories.

If the election outcome on 7 May leads to a change in administration, then we might be able to radically change the course of the future of central Botley. If not, I expect we will still see a proposal that gains a net loss in local shops, in exchange for Mace’s pet schemes: student housing and multi-plex cinema. I hope I’m wrong about Mace’s plans.

Are Doric gone for good? Well, they’ve done no website updates, Facebook posts or Tweets since 2 December 2014.

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.

My Wins in Planning

I spend time thinking about why people should vote for me.

The main thing I’m proud of is that I’ve been an effective councillor in helping people to object to or fight against unreasonable planning applications. The biggest success was, of course, the fight against the Doric plans for West Way. Many hands made light the work.

Jerry Patterson, most recenlty the Vale councillor for South Hinksey, said of me:

[Debby]quickly acquired a grasp of how the planning system works, and has helped many Botley residents with planning issues…

Learning about how the planning process works was the most diffcult task I undertook. The process isn’t documented anywhere, and I had to learn how it works by asking questions. If I was asking awkward questions, it was even tougher. I once asked the Cabinet Member for planning if I could have a flow chart of the process, so that I could better help resident to understand how it all works, and the points in the process where they could have an effect on the outcome. He rolled his eyes at me. lol!

I learned how the planning timetable works, so can now I can help people to know the right time to get invovled and how to present your concerns so that they have a better chance of being heard.

I can intervene when things aren’t running along as they should, to get updates or encourage actions or decisions.

I learned that many of my assumptions about how things worked simply weren’t true. For example, I assumed all members of the planning committee read all of the Comments posted on the planning website. Of course, they don’t. They can’t. There wouldn’t be enough hours in the day. So they have to rely on the planning officer’s synopsis and they take it for granted that the planning officer has understood the details of everything. Of course, the planning officer doesn’t always get it right. They couldn’t. Same problem of not enough hours in the day.

So I learned how to draw committee’s attention to what I think are relevant concerns and to link them to policy and guidelines.

We’ve had some successes when we work together as a community and a councillor.

Greenacre – 3 refusals
26-28 Westminster Way – Refusal
Bovis Homes – some helpful conditions attached to approval
Doric’s Plans for West Way – refusal
Little Dene – some helpful conditions attached to approval
13 Cumnor Hill – refusal
54 Hurst Rise Rd – 3 refusals, and at least one withdrawn
Oxford Brookes University Master Plan – withdrawn

If I’m re-elected, I plan to continue to help residents more effectively resist bad developments.

One particular problem I’ve noticed was highlighted by the Inspector on an appeal against the refusal at 26-28 Westminster Way. She pointed out that there’s a confusion between the County’s parking standards that define a maximum number of parking spaces (a policy intended to encourage lower car-ownership rates by under-provision of on-site parking) and local reality checks that need a minimum number of car parking sapces (a view that’s intended to ease on-street parking congestion). These two intentions work against each other. I’d lke to open discussions with Vale Planning and County as Local Highway Authority, and see what can be done.

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett and Emily Smith (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.

I’m recommended by Cllr Jerry Patterson

Due to the boundary changes in the Vale of White Horse, I am standing in a new ward called Botley & Sunningwell. This new, larger ward, comprises Wytham, North Hinksey, South Hinksey and Sunningwell.

The previous councillor for South Hinksey is Jerry Patterson, and he has kindly endorsed me as his replacement in South Hinksey.

I was first elected to represent South Hinksey Parish in 2003 when it was combined with Kennington Parish to form a new Kennington & South Hinksey Ward. The main issues these last 12 years have concerned flooding, development in the Oxford Green Belt, Red Bridge Hollow travellers’ site, the closure and re-opening of the General Eliott pub and the ramp for the new Devil’s Backbone bridge over the railway line to South Oxford. I have always endeavoured to work with residents, South Hinksey Parish Council and the Vale Council to get the best outcomes on these issues for the people of the Parish. After a review of ward boundaries in the District, South Hinksey Parish will become part of the new Botley and Sunningwell Ward, so I will no longer be able to be its representative on the Vale Council.

My colleague, Debby Hallett, was elected to the Vale Council to represent the North Hinksey & Wytham ward in 2011, and along with Emily Smith, will be standing as the Liberal Democrat candidate in the coming election on 7 May.

Debby has been a first rate Councillor for North Hinksey & Wytham these last 4 years. She quickly acquired a grasp of how the planning system works, and has helped many Botley residents with planning issues, particularly on the West Way shopping centre application on which she and Emily helped lead an informed and effective resistance to the developer’s plans, resulting in the eventual refusal of the application.

Voters in South Hinksey couldn’t hope to have two better representatives than Debby and Emily.

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett and Emily Smith (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.

The Problem with the Tory Local Plan 2031

Vale Tory logic about their Local Plan 2031 just doesn’t hold up to careful scrutiny.

Check this out.

The SHMA figures (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) for required housing over the next 15 years are high. They were established by local businesses based on their projected growth. Companies always optimistically project their own growth. Many people and organisations think the SHMA figures are unrealistically high.

SHMA housing figures were explicitly intended to be the baseline. Local authorities were expected to apply relevant local constraints to come up with a realistic housing target.

Vale Tories have repeatedly said there were no constraints in the Vale, so the SHMA figures had to be accepted as the real, objectively assessed need for new housing development.

Vale Tories propose to build ~~thousands~~ , okay, several hundreds of new homes in the Oxford Green Belt. (Whether they build in the Green Belt, or redefine the boundaries of the Green Belt so as to have access to that land for development, it’s the same thing.) Tories believe the only way they can meet the housing targets is to build in the Green Belt.

Isn’t that the very definition of the word ‘constraint’? If we do not have enough land to build the required number of houses without Green Belt land, then that is a constraint, and the target number of houses in the Local Plan should have been reduced.

I asked about this specifically, at the Vale Scrutiny Committee in 2014, when we looked closely at the most controversial areas of the Local Plan. No one would answer this question.

Vale Tories and their Vale officers repeated, over and over, that there are no constraints in the Vale, so we are forced to accept SHMA figures as targets.

Ridiculous. Illogical. Ruinous to our open spaces.

Emily Smith, Judy Roberts, Layla Moran, Dudley Hoddinott, Debby Hallett. In the Green Belt, Cumnor

Green Belt legislation explicitly says lack of housing land supply is not enough of an exceptional circumstance to allow development in the Green Belt.

A few months ago, Eric Pickles published some new government guidance about this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/11139303/New-protections-for-Englands-Green-Belt-unveiled-by-Eric-Pickles.html

Here’s the bottom line (from the article in link above):

A Government source said: “Many council planning officers are telling their councillors that they have to remove Green Belt protection when drawing up their Local Plans, in order to meet [housing] demand.

“We are making clear that this isn’t the case, and they can take into account development restrictions – such ongoing Green Belt protection – when drawing up their Local Plans and determining how many houses they want to plan for.”

#LogicFail

Printed (hosted) by Hostgator, 11251 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, TX, 77092, USA. Published and promoted by N Fawcett on behalf of Debby Hallett (Liberal Democrats), both at 27 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1HU, UK.