When I spoke with Stuart Walker on the 15th Jan 2014, his best estimate was that they should be up by the end of the week. I pointed out he had said this before. He said, yes, unfortunately things don’t always go smoothly. I asked him if he could post those docs that are complete, and continue to post them as they came in. He said, no. They all need to go up at once.

He still promises to contact me immediately when the plans are ready and posted. I believe him.

Now, it’s the end of the weekend, and the plans haven’t yet been posted.

It’s anxiety-producing, that’s for sure.

But remember that the official consultation period doesn’t begin until all plans are checked and posted, and the formal consultation letters have gone out to residents.

I will post a notice here when that happens, and send an email to everyone on my email list. (If you want to join my email list, you can sign up here.)

At the most recent meeting of the Botley Traffic Advisory Committee (BTAC), discussion was around the basically unsatisfactory nature of the traffic in Botley. One instance after another came up for discussion and possible solutions.

At one point, Keith Stenning, the Oxfordshire County Council Area Steward for the Vale locality, said, “The biggest weapon for tackling traffic problems is a Neighbourhood Plan. I don’t know how far you’ve got along toward developing one?’ He looked around. Parish Clerk, Parish Council Chairman and Cllr Erc Batts (all of whom have been unsupportive of recent community efforts to start creating a Neighbourhood Plan) looked down and shifted uncomfortably in their seats. Keith continued, ‘Until you have a Neighbourhood Plan in place, you won’t be listened to.’

That was both good news and bad news. It’s good news that someone from outside the parish has said that it would be good for the parish. I’ve been encouraging the parish council to explore this for a long time. It’s bad news in that we don’t have a Neighbourhood Plan, but we DO have serious traffic problems, which are likely to increase as a result of current and upcoming planning applications that will bring more cars into Botley.

In the last two months, a working party was set up, a professional expert panel was assembled for a public meeting (which was very well-attended, by the way) with time for Questions and Answers. But the parish council hasn’t supported the work they did nor recognised that people want such a plan, nor that such a plan will be helpful.

A Neighbourhood Plan for North Hinksey, or for Botley (if we join hands with Cumnor Parish) would give local people a say in where local development takes place, and go along way to ensuring development is where we need it and of good benefit to the community.

Garden-grabbing specualtive planning applications to demolish one or two family homesand put up blocks of small flats must be controlled.

The Vale adminstration hasn’t been able to get any policies in place to help. The Localism Act gives parishes and towns some power, but they must exercise that power through consultation and a Neighbourhood Plan.

In case I’m not being clear, I support a Neighbourhood Plan for Botley, and the working group that has already been formed. I call on the Parish Council to authorise this important work, to give local people the control we need over development in our community, and to recognise the already established working group as having shown they can get the work done professionally and bring the community along with them. I applaud that and what to help however I can.

The parish council has Neighbourhood Planning on their agenda for Thursday the 19th meeting (at 8pm). You can attend and hear the debate, you can write to them via the clerk (nhpcclerk@msn.com). If you write, please copy the working group: botleyneighbourhoodplan@yahoo.co.uk so they’ll know your views.

More info onthe Government’s Neighbour Hood Planning scheme. 

Oxford Times article about Botley’s NP

Waitrose have recently consulted with local residents about their plan to open a food store on Botley Road, at the old MFI/Halfords site.

See their info here: http://www.waitrosebotleyroad.co.uk/

I like Waitrose for a lot of reasons; their food is good, community mindedness is at the forefront of their concerns, they’re green, and they have a good employee-ownership business model. (Part of John Lewis.)

I especially want them to open a store on Botley Road.

I hope they do, and I hope they stay enough ahead of the planning and construction game to contribute to the downfall of Doric’s plans to demolish West Way and Elm’s Parade to build another food store.

Red; 3 storey. Blue: 2 storey. Yellow: 1.5 storey.

I carried your message to Bovis Homes.

Based on what you told me was important to you, I impressed upon Bovis the importance of ensuring current residents in Lime Road and Yarnells Hill wouldn’t be overlooked by 3 storey buildings going up next to their properties.

Bovis Homes have moved all 3-storey buildings away from the boundaries shared with existing houses, and further back into the middle of the estate.

Bovis previously removed all 4 storey buildings in response to community complaints about the height of the development.

In my book, this is a major win!

The meeting with Bovis Homes about the Lime Road development (it will be called Oak Mills) was Thursday the 1st of August (the day it was 34c!), and I am so pleased with how Bovis Homes and their architects heard your concerns, evaluated and dealt with them fairly.

I’ll send round an email (and printed copy to those who have contacted me who aren’t online). I’m waiting for the draft agreement to be sent by Bovis, outlining what we agreed to at the meeting.

But it may seem to you like I’ve gone dead silent!!

I presented all the categories of concern, chiefly the height of the buildings being built adjacent to existing houses, and the way they will overlook, dominate and affect privacy. Bovis paid attention and are having the architects swap some building locations so that everything near the boundaires with other houses will be limited to two storeys. Big win!

The bridle path will remain a bridle path, not be tarmacked or lit. To address concerns of it becoming a hangout for people who may not behave in a socially acceptable way, the pedestrian path that led out onto this trail is eliminated. Win, win, win!

There will be more landscaping put in next to the bridle path directly across from (sort of behind) the lower-numbered houses on Lime Road. They made the note of our request for evergreen, and the likely solution will be some sort of hedging. Win!

Water drainage. The required plan calls for less run-off than there is now. This is mostly achieved via undergraound storage tanks. Win.

Construction nuisance. There will be a constuction management plan to ensure vehicles are parked on site, work hours are reasonable, noise and mess is minimised, etc. I found out the reason that development at Arrundale is SUCH a nuisance is that it is too small for a Construction Management Plan to be required. Oak Mills will have one, and Bovis will put me in touch with the site manager who will take care of things that (inevitably) go wrong. Another win!

Re: traffic. That isn’t under the control of the develiopers; rather it is a County thing. The several traffic assessment reports are available on the planning website. Details there tell us when surveys were taken and the results in tems of congenstion at all times of the day. If we disagree with the highways agency’s findings, we’ll have to take it up with them. Cllr Janet Godden will be our ally in this.

Re: Parking. The provided parking exceeds the required standard. Each affordable home will have one space. All others have a minimum of two and many have more than that. Bovis expects Brookes’ students to park there and walk to campus. It’s going to have to be something that we address if and when a problem arises. Again, if the standards aren’t adequate, that’s a different problem to the builders not providing enough parking.

That’s the rough result. I felt really pleased with all I was able to get agreement for, and I hope you do to. Consulttion was done in a hurry, but so many of you responded!

Thanks to everyone who responded. The voices were stronger in numbers.

I think I’ll start up a newsletter, to keep everyone informed throughout the development.

I sent my response to the planning application at 54-56 Hurst Rise Road. Here’s what I said:

I write in my role as the local district councillor for this area.

Among the responses I see here on the website, I see not a single letter in favour; ALL are opposed.

The owners and developers of this site could have reduced the community anger and distress by courteously and professionally consulting with neighbours. Instead, sequential applications that vary by only small details have caused repeated and prolonged effort on the part of the people who live here to respond with a sense of urgency to what they perceive as a major danger, a character-changing estate being proposed for the heart of their street.

With one previous application refused, and a subsequent application withdrawn (before it could be refused) residents have been harassed and stressed about this site for years now. Surely planning policy isn’t intended to be abused like this?

All their objections are valid; some of them are material.

Hydrology (drainage and stability). On-site parking. Construction access and nuisance. Waste removal vehicle access. Over-development, overlooking, sunlight blocking, particularly for no 52. Access on steep, blind curve where cars park on street.

In the current situation, with no Local Plan and lack of adequate housing supply, there is danger that this application, if refused, would be turned over on appeal. Therefore is seems the only relevant arguments might be those of safety: underground streams affecting the stability of the site; unsafe access presenting a real danger to cars, cycles and pedestrians, particularly children who aren’t so skilful at looking out for dangers on the road. Or of the saved policies; which of them are being honoured on appeal, and which are overturned?

It seems obvious to everyone that this development is unsuitable for this plot in this street in this area.

How will the planning department help the people who already live here? Please find a way.

Another Lib Dem idea under discussion; free bus travel for under 16’s.

If children could use the bus for free, would it make them safer?

Would it significantly reduce the number of cars clogging small local roads on the school run?

What do you think?

Read about it here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23387325

I had something to say about it, with attitude. Here it is:

“I’m responding as the local district councillor.

“I wasn’t around when outline permission was given. It was a long, long time ago. I probably would have argued then too. So, to make up for lost time…

“This is a bad design, mainly due to access, but partly due to other design factors covered by the North Hinksey Parish comments doc, which is quite comprehensive.

“Residents rely on County Highways officers to refuse or object to this application based on the inadequacy of Fogwell Road to manage with all of it. But highways officers have said the road can handle the number of expected cars, and heavy construction access and emergency vehicle access, along with expected parking that essentially turns it into a one lane road. I disagree, but that doesn’t do much good.

“Highways officers judge the capacity of the infrastructure to handle it. But they do not judge the utility (or beauty) of the design, how the design of roads and parking contribute or detract from a sense of community, or traffic flow, or the experience of pedestrians or of cyclists in the space. They aren’t the systems people. That’s the job of the planners. (Correct me when I go wrong here.)

“When the boundary commission considered new district ward boundaries in North Hinksey and Cumnor, they were clear on their operating principles. One principle was that they wouldn’t set boundaries such that in order to access one part of the ward from another, you had to leave the ward.

“This development is proposing to make a sad little orphan estate of the 75 homes on the Seacourt side of Tilbury Lane. The only access to this pocket of North Hinksey parish is through Cumnor Parish (Fogwell Road is all within Cumnor parish). The boundary commission wouldn’t do it, because it’s not supportive of community cohesion, a Very Important Factor. If it’s bad for boundary definition, it’s definitely bad for the design of a housing community.

“The developers propose to create a cut-off piece of NH parish. How can the planners say that’s a good idea? In what way does the support the community identity with North Hinksey Parish of the people living in the new estate?

“It’s got to be someone’s responsibility to advise the designers (who are in it to sell properties, NOT to protect community identity) on how to make a better design out of the pieces the developer cobbles together. Who does that job here in the Vale?

“The tall buildings looming over the Seacourt bungalows should be moved to the centre of the site, and low-rise buildings built on the boundary. Similarly, the people who live in Hazel Road deserve a quality of life that they’ve enjoyed all these decades: don’t build tall buildings right up behind them allowing peering down into their homes and gardens. Seriously. Who looks out for preserving the quality of life for the people who already live here?

“When you look at this design, the next thing to earn the ‘they didn’t think this through’ badge goes to the idea to put the pedestrian and cycle path through Hazel Road, when the clear destinations are likely to be Elms Rd for the surgery, schools and safe crosswalk to the shops. Put the path across to Elms Road. If it’s difficult, be creative and figure a way to do it.

“It’s pretty obvious that this design brings a parking problem to whatever road becomes the terminus of the pedestrian path. Commuters will park there and walk home. Solve that problem by implementing a controlled parking zone, and they’ll park in Seacourt Road. Extend the controlled parking zone and who knows what next? Don’t use a design that guarantees an unintended problem. The fact that this is being pointed out ahead of time removes its unintended nature, and it becomes a deliberate decision to force unwanted parking by non-residents in Botley’s roads. Surely it’s someone’s responsibility to prevent that from happening?

“It’s a challenge to build housing in crowded communities. I don’t have the answers. Are residents and their local councillors are expected to suss it all out? Surely that’s why we have planning policy and planners?

“If we can’t make this bad design great, at least let’s demand the developers make this development good for people who live here in Botley. With every planning approval that ignores the needs of local people (flats on West Way, anyone?) and every inspectorate ruling that overturns local authorities’ attempts to do the right thing (Greenacre in Harcourt Hill?), it feels like unless we the residents find a solution to bad plans, the bad plans get built and the unintended consequences become tomorrow’s problems that take tax money to solve. It’s hot today (18th July), and I’m annoyed. That doesn’t detract from the soundness of my points, IMO.”

My question for Vale Council last night on the Air Quailty In Botley:

Question from Cllr Debby Hallett to the Cabinet member for environmental health, Cllr Roger Cox:

“The Botley AQMA was created in 2008. The Air Quality Updating & Screening Assessment report of 2012 concluded that it was necessary to develop an Air Quality Action Plan for Botley. Please would the Cabinet member for environmental health comment on the efficacy of the Vale’s current Action Plan for reducing nitrogen dioxide air pollution in the Botley AQMA along the A34 corridor, and point us to where the public can see that Action Plan.”

Cllr Cox said he had instructed officers to prepar a plan for the whole district, which would include Botley.

In essence, he told us that there was no plan for Botley.
There are only two areas designated as AQMA, and which need plans to improve: part of central Abingdon, which has a plan, and Botley along the A34 corridor, which doesn’t yet. But will!

I’m glad I asked.