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.

This week the Vale Planning committee voted to defer the decision on this application to allow for time for an architectural review. There was significant unease about the design, how it fits into the neighbourhood, and the visual impact on surrounding areas, including as far as Oxford.

It will likely come back to committee in about a month. In the meantime, I am working with Vale officers and local residents to arrange to bring all parties to the table for a positive and constructive talk. We recognise this development will happen, and we want to do everything possible to ensure it fits in well with life in upper Elms Rise.

It’s not clear whether this deferment will be appealed; Bovis are keen to get started, since they’ve already had to wait a few years. We should know more by the end of August.

Oxford Brookes Universtiy Master Plan is no longer going to be considered by the Vale Cabinet as a supplementary planning document to the emerging Local Plan.

Officers thought there were too many unresilved issues, mainly having to do with adeqacy of roads infrastructure to accommodate the expansion, for approval to go ahead at this time.

So the master plan has been withdrawn.

This is a win for local people, especially the Harcourt Hill residents, who relentlessly pointed out that intractable problems were not being addressed, and that it wasn’t good enough to have a promise to address them in the future.

No one has provided a good answer to the question of what sort of benefit being an approved Supplementary Planning Document, granted to the university. Some thought it handed the owners an easier pass through the planning application approval process.

We can rest a little easier in this knowledge: both County and Vale officers opine that the roads and access problems are significant and need addressing with any expansion plans.