Doric questions I asked today

I sent a slew of questions off to Stuart Walker in the past 48 hours (and he’s answered). So I want to share them here.

Question: There is a tree survey report included in these new amendments. But it only surveys the trees located in the back gardens of residents in Arthray Road. None on the site itself are included here, so all the TPOs are missed out. A previous tree survey was submitted with the original plans. But it didn’t consider the TPOs either. How are TPOs handled for this planning application then?

Answer: The tree survey is an additional statement to address concerns we had with trees in back gardens on properties on Arthray Road.  The TPO trees will be assessed by Tim Stringer who will be responding to the application in due course.

————–

Question: In their ES Addendum (6.5 p 118), Doric tell how they plan to use West Way House as the construction offices plus other facilities.Now that the offices at West Way House are to be converted to flats, it’s not clear to me how that will work. Of course, if the planned development work to convert that disused space into flats doesn’t proceed, there’s no problem once Doric have acquired that property. But if the flats are occupied, then what will happen?

Answer: I understand the flats will not proceed if permission is granted for the redevelopment.

———–

Question: Please can you help us understand why Doric have included the Rushden decision docs in their planning application? We don’t understand the relevance of that decision to this application.

Answer: Doric has included this appeal decision which has been picked up nationally in planning as a key case in how to assess / interpret retail impact with regard to the National Planning Policy Framework.

——————-

Question: It’s my understanding that student housing will generate no council tax for the Vale, county or parish. Is that correct? How, then, do we pay for the services they require? Is it all done via section 106 up front? Or is there another way that I don’t know about?

This 550 dwelling proposal may bring 600-700 people (a total guess, with married students resident in some units), a figure which swells the population of North Hinksey by something like 10%.

Without council tax to pay for it all, how do we handle, police, rubbish, roads, public transport, doctor, dentist, recreational amenties, and all the other things required by such a group?

Answer: I do not know the answer as to whether they pay council tax or not, but the upshot is, if not, the management company will be tasked with bin collection etc often paid via service charges.  The accommodation is proposed to be single occupancy and any other impact on services such as police etc may be captured financially in a S106.

———-

Question: Could you or one of your team please point me to the application doc or docs that explain the approach and details for accessibility for the disabled. I had a letter last week from a resident in a large motorised wheelchair who gets around with assistance from her guide dog. She can’t see anywhere that she will be able to access the shops and services, and is very concerned.  I’d like to see what provision Doric have given to her needs and others like her.

Answer: This is an issue we have been looking at very closely and I have met with the Vale’s disability action group in the summer where we interrogated the plans to ensure they worked for scooters and wheel chairs etc.  The general approach is detailed in the design and access statements.  In respect of the amendments there are new lifts to the plaza level from the corner opposite Barclays, and another lift at the Library end of the development. There are also travelators in the atrium to the supermarket.  Ultimately the development will need to comply with current building regulations (separate from planning) which ensure access for all abilities is achieved.

I asked for clarification: Is there a way for a disabled motorised wheel chair user and her dog (and maybe their attendant?) to exit their van in the disabled car park and access the shops? Everything seems to be located on the West Way side of the centre, but I thought the car park was on the south side and underground?

His clarification: Yes.  There [are] lifts from the car park and the travelators in the atrium to the supermarket to allow for such access.

Doric’s reply to a similar question I posted on MY Facebook page (there’s no way to ask a question on THEIR FB page): Convenient access was considered throughout the design of the proposals with provisions made for people of all abilities. Any detailed design stage would further look into the needs of visitors including those with accessibility needs however our Transport Assessment and Design and Access statement provide information at this outline stage. To specifically answer the query you mention, the ramp and stair access are DDA compliant and disabled parking bays will be provided by the main store atrium where escalators and lifts will be available.

Which sent me back to Stuart Walker to ask: Doric consider this an outline stage. I’ve been under the impression that this IS the full detailed desgin, and that we aren’t simply at outline stage. Have I misunderstood?

Answer: This is a FULL application – I guess Doric are referring to when construction drawings are produced post planning.

———

One more question (Stuart will be away on hols from eob on 19th Sep until the 6th of Oct): Many questions are coming in from the public now that we are about halfway through this third consultation. My approach has been to send them on to you for clarification or direction, then provide the information I get from you to the public.

Who should I contact while you’re away please?

We often need to be pointed to where in the application docs the information is to be found. In cases where we highlight something that’s not contained in the current docs, we’d like to know what will be done (maybe it’s not relevant to planning determination, or, if it is, you will request this info from Doric).

Answer: I’m afraid there is no one specific who is dealing with this application in my absence, but please contact either Adrian [Duffield] or any member of the Vale DM (Development Management, or, essentially, Planning] team who will be happy to assist you where possible.
So, there we are as of today. If you have questions such as these, send them along and I’ll do my best to get an answer for you.

 

 

Doric’s SCI Addendum – not true

Today I filed a comment on the Vale’s planning page for West Way. My first draft was full of outraged adjectives and adverbs. I took a tea break and edited it so that this is the final version:

Doric’s claims in their recent SCI Addendum aren’t true.

Doric tell you that their website and Facebook page are used for public questions and answers, to engage in conversation with the community.

  • They say their Facebook page, “engages with members of the community to respond to their comments, questions and concerns”. That’s just not true. They don’t allow questions to be posted there.
  • They say their website “is now more user-friendly and provides the opportunity for users to … ask questions.” This isn’t true; I see nowhere for public questions and answers.

I went to both places yesterday specifically to ask about accessibility for the disabled, and there is no way to post a question in either place.

Since this SCI Addendum is part of their planning application, I assume there is some sort of requirement or expectation that Doric must meet?

  • What is that requirement regarding community engagement?
  • Is there something in our planning policy that addresses it?
  • What steps do the planning department take to actively check that the claims made by the applicant are indeed true?

This doc makes Doric sound like they are genuinely involving the community in their plans. That’s just not so. They won’t make public their consultation results. Their public events were cancelled and not re-scheduled. Repeated requests from several bodies for scale modelling of their plans are ignored. Reports they refer to aren’t published or provided when asked for. There’s no forum for asking questions and getting sincere answers.

Doric’s claims in the SCI Addendum aren’t true. They shouldn’t be included as evidence that some requirement has been met.

17 Sep 14

 

 

Letter to the Oxford Diocese from Doric

A snippet from appendix 10.1 of the ES Addendum (Doric’s amendments), a letter to the Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance (owners of St Peter and St Paul church and vicarage);

“The development proposals for Botley District Centre have also been revised to enable a greater provision of age-restricted residential accommodation to be brought forward at the western end of the site. There are now 50 apartments – a mix of 1 and 2 Bedrooms – which now exceeds the total net floor area compared to the present accommodation it will replace whilst still enjoying related communal garden amenity space for the residents.

“A consequence of this amendment is that it is no longer feasible to re-provide the Vicarage within the application site.”

 

Dorics Plans – Do my old comments still apply?

I had a letter from a resident wondering if this consultation, the third about the Doric plans, will still consider previously submitted comments. I thought if one person had this question, others might too.

Here’s the question:

Do the (900+) objection letters submitted in the last round still carry weight or is the new application by Doric seen by the authorities as separate? In other words, if there are fewer objection letters this time round, will the assumption be that there is less opposition?

Here’s my reply:

All the previous objections still stand–it’s still the same application.

The idea is that Doric may think they’ve addressed some of the material planning considerations raised so far. So we can comment on that, or on anything else actually.

Basically, if you have something new to add, log another comment.

Vale planning officers fully understand how unpopular this proposal is. What they track is the essence of the objection. If enough of them aren’t addressed, there’s a better chance it will be refused.

(What I meant in that last line was if enough of the material planning considerations raised so far aren’t addressed by Doric in their amendments, then those material considerations are still valid, and are reasons for refusal.)

 

The cases FOR and AGAINST student housing in Botley

Oxford Mail covered Doric’s amended plans from the objectors’ perspective before Doric had sent out their blurbs. (And, by the way, what ever happened to those public presentations Doric scheduled then cancelled at the last minute?)

Read the article and (the good) comments here: http://bit.ly/1pWis5I

To the person who Commented that Doric might know more than I do about the case for student housing, they should read the reports for themselves.

Case for (submitted this week by Doric): Doric’s Report – Oxford demand report FINAL

Case against: Potters Report – Case Against Student Housing in Botley

The former  report is an exercise in truth by assertion. Doric says they strongly believe that Oxford students want to live in Botley, and that Oxford City’s need for student housing can be satisfied in Botley.  There’s no evidence of that, zero, none. Just a very strong opinion, stated just like that (‘very strong opinion’) several times.

The latter report by Dr Caroline Potter is evidence based.

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Read them and decide for yourself.

Doric’s Deeply Unfortunate Scheme (letter)

I had a letter from a resident this week that I thought provided such an excellent precis of this Doric/Mace/ToryVale/WestWay situation, that I asked them if I could publish their letter here. They said yes, but declined attribution.

Dear Cllr Hallett

I moved to Elm’s Rise with my partner three years ago. It’s a lovely place to live. I’ve found the politics of the place and the Council’s apparent priorities to be, shall we say, rather surprising after living in {snip}. Your communications have been tremendously helpful to my awareness of the issues we face living here.

Sadly, but inevitably, I will now rant on about Doric for a little bit!

Thanks for the update about the revisions to the West Way centre application, for posting Mace’s patronising and self-important response to a constituent on your blog and for the work you are putting in to try and get some sense around this deeply unfortunate scheme. I’ve found the behaviour of the developers absolutely jaw-dropping in its unprofessionalism and contempt for both the local community and sensible planning. Sadly I’ve found it impossible to work out whether the failings of this scheme are due to negligence on the part of the DC or the hubris of inexperienced developers. A good measure of both I suspect.

Looking briefly at some of the documentation in the revised plans a couple of things struck me. In their EA they discounted the refurbishment of the existing centre because a large supermarket would impact the current centre. Now they provide a Southampton University/Tesco report that supports large supermarkets as beneficial to current centres, I think to justify their traffic projections, but ironically evidence for exploring the popular option that they discounted in their EA.

Then they state in the response to the Design Review that the quantum of uses is necessary because of the complexity and scale of the project, thus implicitly refuting objections to scale or evidence of need; a complexity and scale which by all accounts has been pushed only by themselves.

And they’ve provided the planning ruling on the massive out of town development at Rushden Lakes. So I guess in some way at least they acknowledge what this has never been about the redevelopment of a local centre.

So frustrating.

 

Doric’s latest amendments are online

They just came up on the website this morning, and are still undergoing checking and re-organisation. You can see them here in the Amendments folder: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P13/V2733/FUL

I think one good place to start is with the Design & Access Statement Addendum here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/dynamic_serve.jsp?ID=328297503&CODE=05CE7BB6C9CA1A96204DEF38D05F51BA

Although there are typos and some errors of fact (the Design Panel was on 2 June 14, not 18 June 14 as this doc states), hopefully they aren’t anything material. Further study will show if there are important errors. If you find glaring errors that might bear on this planning decision, bring them to the attention of Vale officer, or to West Way Concern, who will be sure it’s handled.

But this doc lists all the changes, and plots them on a site map. It also explains the reasons for the changes.

Deadline for comments is officially 29 Sept, but there is some leniency in this. So plan for that date, and don’t worry too much if you go over by a few days.