Cumnor Green Belt Saved

I just came from an Opposition briefing on the Local Plan 2013.

The Tories have REMOVED Cumnor South housing site from the Local Plan. This was a proposed site for some 200 homes. (This is the site south of the cricket fields.) But it is no longer in the Local Plan.

We petitioned and campaigned on this, and it has worked! I’m thrilled. That portion of the Oxford Green Belt has been saved!! Brilliant.

 

 

13 Cumnor Hill comes to Planning Cttee 30 Jul 14

Today I have heard from Vale officers that the application for 14 flats over three storeys at the corner of Cumnor Hill and Hurst Rise Road is coming to planning committee on 30 July 14. The meeting is in Wantage at The Beacon and starts at 18:30.

The officer tells me it is recommended for approval contingent on successful signing of the s106 agreements covering the developer’s contributions to schools, libraries and infrastructure. (This is standard.)

His report isn’t online yet. When it is, you can see it as part of the agenda pack on this page: http://democratic.whitehorsedc.gov.u/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=102

You can speak at the meeting, but remember that the objectors are limited to only 3 minutes, and that time is for all speakers. That is, if there are 3 speakers, each person can have a little over a minute. Here are details: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/application-advice/planning-committees/speak-at-a-planning-committee- . (I’ve just had a look at that page, and it’s out of date. The meetings are in Wantage now, and you can notify Legal & Democratic Services if you want to speak.)

If you wish to speak, contact Susan Harbour in Legal & Democratic Services no later than Tuesday. Susan.Harbour@southandvale.gov.uk

I’ll be there; I get 3 minutes too.

PS. (An hour later) I just had a phone call. The Vale page is being updated, probably today, about how to speak at a planning committee meeting. Anyone who logged a comment will also be notified about the meeting, and there’s a whole new way to sign up to speak, if you want to be very modern. All the old methods (phone, email, pony express) still work too.

 

Ploughing through the backlog

Hi everyone.

I’ve been SO busy in the past two weeks, that I’ve fallen behind with blog posts and newsletters. I’m determined to get a newsletter out asap. So to support it I need to get all these articles of importance on the blog.

(Update on 9 Jun 14 – I beavered away and have a lot of new bits of info posted. Click on links below.)

  1. Doric’s Environmental Statement for West Way
  2. West Way Design Review Panel meeting
  3. My update with Stuart Walker
  4. Individual Voter Regisration
  5. Questions to the Vale
  6. Air Quality Action Plan for Botley
  7. Election results in Oxford West and Abingdon (there is some good news there)

 

I’ll get started now, and pause for lunch and the mens final at Roland Garros. 🙂

Planning Update meeting 6 Jun 14

On Friday 6 June I had my periodic update from the planning officer who manages the West Way application, Stuart Walker. Here are the main points:

  • Last week had the Design Review Panel, a West Way Community Concern update meeting with Planning officers, and the Environmental Statement consultation began.
  • Planning team apologises for the computer glitch that sent out some letters with a two week consultation deadline, instead of the agreed three weeks.
  • The online versions of the Environmental Statement is about to be resized to allow all appendices to be read. (It’s all just too big!)
  • Over the next month Stuart and his team will be reviewing all the letters of objection to begin the investigation into points raised.
  • If Doric submit any amendments, there will be another consultation period.
  • Planning Officers are actively seeking a venue to be used for the Planning Committee meeting that considers this application.
  • At that planning committee meeting, there will be 20 minute slots: 1 for objectors, 1 for supporters, 1 for the parish council.
  • I’ll ask the Chairman of the planning committee, Cllr Robert Sharp, about allowing local members to speak outside those slots, so that our time doesn’t use up others’ time. For example, if I object, I don’t want to eat away at the 20 minutes WWCC has!

That’s what I learned.

West Way – Questions for the Vale

At the last full Vale council meeting in May, I went on the record and asked the leader of the council, Cllr Matthew Barber, when he would be providing the written answers to questions from the public to the Scrutiny Committee that he promised to us in Nov 2013. He said, ‘Forthwith’.

I had a call from a senior Vale officer almost immediately. Since so much time had passed, and since they didn’t have copies of the individual questions asked that night, the Vale made an offer: We (the community concerned with West Way redevelopment) could submit new questions and they would get written answers, ‘forthwith’.

I polled the West Way Community Concern core team, who not only provided the original questions, but sent some new ones in as well. And I added one or two myself.

I sent in these questions last week, to which the CEO has said they will provide answers.

  1. In the autumn of 2013, Council urged Cabinet to act on behalf of the residents to do all it could to get Doric to come back to the table and work with residents to create a plan that everyone could support. What action has Cabinet taken in this direction, and what results have been achieved?
  1. I (Cllr Debby Hallett) asked Matt Prosser at our very first members briefing, just before Cabinet signed the first deal with Doric, the following: I understand your responsibility is to the financial health of the council. Who is the one responsible for looking out for the well-being of the residents already living here? This was apparently a surprising question. After a bit of thought, Mr Prosser told me that he would take that responsibility. Now that a couple of years have passed, and Matt Prosser is no longer here, I still have all the same concerns and they are stronger than ever. Also, now I understand that this is a Cabinet-driven decision, so it’s not really the officers who are tasked with looking after the interest of residents. So my question is, who on Cabinet is responsible for looking out for the interests and needs of the people who live and work in Botley?
  1. How does the change in ownership and directorship at Doric affect the contract relationship? What are Mace’s responsibilities and what are Doric’s? Does the contract have anything to say about a change in parties?
  1. The redevelopment of Botley was first defined in the redevelopment of Site 1, and later, in the planned redevelopment of Site 2. When did the definition of ‘Botley Central Area’ extend to include the land occupied by Elm’s Parade, Field House and the vicarage, and on what basis?
  1. Can Mr Buckle explain why the statement regarding intention to use compulsory purchase was allowed to be minuted and was not corrected? Was he, Matthew Barber, or Matt Prosser not aware of the existence of the draft compulsory purchase indemnity agreement?
  1. Mr Buckle stated that the council has dual responsibilities to both maximise its assets as a public body and also to cater for the needs of its local population. At the [Scrutiny] meeting, the question was asked as to whether any sort of options study was carried out to consider the various options, i.e. an evidence-based analysis of the social economic and environmental impacts. There was no answer given to that question. How, therefore, has it been demonstrated that the proposal meets either or both objectives, in both the immediate and longer term?
  1. We were told, repeatedly, that this was simply a property sale, and hence no competitive process was required – simply a market test. It is now evident that this is in practice a ‘development partnership’. What evidence is there to demonstrate that this partnership with Doric and now the Joint Venture with Mace provides a suitable vehicle, and best overall value, for any proposed development in the Vale?
  1. Cllr Barber also said, ‘We will engage on a measured course to try to accommodate the concerns of the community and push for changes to the scheme where possible.’  We have seen little evidence that our concerns have been even registered, never mind accommodated. When is Cllr Barber going to listen to local people?
  1. Letter to the CEO and to Leader Cllr Matthew Barber from Dr Mary Gill in response to recent public statements by CEO and previous public statements by Leader have not yet been answered. When will she have a response?
  1. Questions from Dr Caroline Potter to the Leader have been acknowledged but not answered. She asks, “In a December 2013 meeting between officers and members of the Vale Council, North Hinksey and Cumnor Parish Councils, and WWCC, it was agreed that the destruction of Field House would only be acceptable if like-for-like new accommodation was provided, and if residents would be able to move directly from Field House into the new accommodation rather than having to be temporarily re-housed. The planning application proposes a reduction in age-restricted units from 67 existing (62 flats and 5 bungalows) to 33 flats, with the new flats built on the existing Field House site and thus requiring temporary re-housing during development. How can the Council possibly support this, given the earlier assurances that this kind of uncertainty and potentially permanent loss of elderly residents’ homes would not be acceptable?”

I’ll post here all answers I receive.

Individual electoral registration

From June 10th, the way we register to vote is changing.

Instead of using a household form to register everyone at your address, everyone will take individual responsibility for their own registration. IER: Individual Electoral Registration.

All currently registered electors will have their name and address checked against government records so that they can be confirmed under IER. The vast majority will be confimred and automatically transferred. In the Vale’s test run this was almost 80%. Those people need do nothing.

Every registered elector will get a letter. It will either tell you that your details have been transferred successfully and you need do nothing, or that you need to provide some additional information to the Electoral Register Officer.

If you are successfully transferred, your postal or proxy vote status will be transferred with you.

Look out for your letter in July.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.