13 Cumnor Hill – a win for the people

Last night the Vale Planning Committee voted to refuse permission to build the mega-block of flats on the corner of Cumnor Hill and Hurst Rise Road.

Councillors felt that the applicant’s introduction of the idea of this site as a special landmark corner, and a transition between the Cumnor and Botley areas, was a ploy to exempt them from having to adhere to planning policy. The applicants put the case that since this is a special, landmark location, it deserves a special landmark building such as their design for three storeys of flats and roof gardens.

Councillor Janet Shelley asked her colleagues on committee, ‘If it’s such a landmark design, why do they need to hide it behind so many trees?’ (Laughter.)

Speaking against the plans were Cllr Julia Hammett of the North Hinksey Parish Council, Melanie Jackson Smith, representing the community of homeoners who objected, and me, representing the people of North Hinksey & Wytham, but also looking out for the future of the Vale.

If we let a developer call a corner ‘special’ and then allow him to breach every policy and design guideline we have, it would mean everyone would be looking around for such special corners in their area where they could essentially build anything they want. That’s a road we do not want to travel!

A win for the people. Well, done, everyone!

West Way Design Review Panel meeting

A panel of consultant architects met on 3 June at Botley Baptist Church to review the West Way designs.

There were 5 on the panel: four architects and one who was taking copious notes from which the report will be generated in a couple of weeks. This wasn’t a public meeting, but rather a part of the professional consultations the Vale Planning Department holds for major applications. The Vale invited me to attend as an observer. (It was SUCH a challenge at times for me to be silent.)

All in all, I counted 28 people in attendance. I had thought no one from Doric was there (it was all Mace, plus consultants who had worked on the designs for Doric). But I’m informed Mr Fasier of Doric arrived late and was somewhere behind me, so I didn’t see him. Actually, I may have seen him, but I wouldn’t know him; I’ve never met him that I know of, and he’s not exactly been visible in the neighbourhood.

Anyway.

In the morning they took a tour of the site. In the afternoon, we saw Mace’s presentation, and the panel asked questions.

Here’s a sample:

– Why student housing?

– What does the community feel about this proposal?

– Isn’t this more of an urban design planned for this suburban area?

– What about the experience of residents of Arthray Road? How can you help to make this less of a bad experience for them?

– It’s hard to understand what’s the front and what’s the back.

– panel members thought the parts that show on the street front (I can’t recall the jargon, but it was pervasive) were too varied, too messy and not showing enough distinctive character. They thought this plan could be plunked down anywhere, and they asked made it distinct to Botley.

– Concern about the big tower at the corner of Westminster Way and West Way, which implies an entrance, but there isn’t one.

– Concern about the one community building with three uses: church, community hall and residences.

– Isn’t ‘the box’ too big for the site (referring to the size of the food store building)?

– I assume you have a food operator in place? (Answer from Mace: Yes. I was surprised, since we’d heard from a senior Vale officer that there was as yet no commitment but late stage talks ongoing.)

I spoke with Stuart Walker at the coffee break, and he asked me what I thought of the process so far. I said I was very impressed with how the panel members seemed to understand the key issues; they were very sharp. They are experienced enough to know when they are getting hype instead of facts too.

You can see the artists’ sketches on Dorics website: http://www.doricproperties.com/botley/. On the day they had a fly-through presentation I hadn’t seen before. I’d like them to put it up on their website.

I’m watching out for the report — I think it will be interesting. Doric/Mace took much of the panel’s comments on board, and I bet we will see some changes.

 

Doric File Environmental Statement for West Way Plans

On Tuesday, 3 June 2014, Doric filed their long-awaited Environmental Statement with the Vale Planning Department.

The statutory consultation runs for three weeks, or until the 24th of June. Any comments received by that date are sure to be considered. You can still comment after that date, but as time goes on and the planning officers reports get more complete, the weight of comments’ influence diminishes.

So, get them in by the 24th of June. If you can’t make that deadline, get them in as soon after the 24th as possible.

You can see the HUGE Environmental Statement (including a Non-Technical Summary) and register your Comments on the Vale website here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P13/V2733/FUL

The docs are in the folder called 2014-06-03 Environmental Impact Assessment.

To file your comment, click on the Orange button Comment Now.

Or, you can see a printed copy at the Botley Library or the West Way Community Concern Shop in Elms Parade.

 

Vale objects to Botley Rd Waitrose

The Vale filed its objection to the proposed Waitrose in West Oxford on Botley Road at the site where MFI used to be.

You can read it on Dropbox here: Vale Objection to Waitrose

Doric did their own objecting, and you can read it on the Oxford City planning site here: Doric Objection to Waitrose

For info, the reference number for the planning applicaiton is 14/00067/FUL. It was registered in January 2014 and is currently under consideration (consultation is closed).

 

 

Three important things

I’ve been ill, and I’m sorry for radio silence recently.

Two important things for people who check out my blog. OK, three important things.

First, the deadline for submitting your objections or reasons for support to the Vale about Doric’s plans is the 27th of March. You can see what others have said on the Vale planning website here.

Second, there are two recent planning applications to demolish single family homes in order to erect a block of flats. Little Dene in Yarnells Hill, and 2 Lime Road + 50 Laburnum Road.

We are vulnerable here in North Hinksey because of the lack of a Local Plan (due to Vale delays) and also a lack of a Neighbourhood Plan (due to Parish Council delays).

Want things to change? There is to be a by-election for three vacant seats on the North Hinksey Parish Council. Deadline to get your name on the ballot is 26 Mar. Contact me for more info. Or contact the parish clerk.

NPPF and Saved Policies inform planning decisions

When the planning officer considers the Doric planning application for West Way, he will use two policy documents in his considerations.

The National Planning Policy Framework (commonly called ‘NPPF‘) is considered in its entirety. (It’s only 47 pages long, so not too onerous.)

The policies that have been saved from the old Local Plan 2011 (commonly called ‘Saved Policies‘) carry weight too.

And that’s all. We currently have no Local Plan in the Vale. And we have no Neighbourhood Plan in North Hinksey Parish either. Only the two documents aboveĀ  inform planning decision-making in Botley.

You can read or download the NPPF from the Communities and Local Government site here.

You can read or download the old Local Plan 2011 from the Vale website here.

You can read or download a list of Saved Policies from the Vale website here. (See the list of policies that begins on page 4.) You’ll have to cross reference them yourself to the Local Plan 2011.)

 

Material Planning Considerations

When you object to any planning application, it’s not enough to say, ‘We don’t want this disgusting development!’

Proper objections use material planning considerations.

To see an explanation of what is a ‘material planning consideration’, check out the Vale website page here.

You can see a list of what’s considered a material consideration, and some examples of what is NOT a material consideration (eg, loss of view, loss of property values).