Planning Review Committee

We met today to discuss two planning applications. There were seven councillors present at the meeting.

The first application was for a development at Cantay House off Park End Street. The application was actually deferred after a discussion about contributions to social housing in developments of 4-9 units that has just been agreed at full council on 19th December. You can see the Development Plan Document (DPD). The whole question really is about how much weight can be given to a policy that was not in place when the application was made, was not in place when it was first determined by the West Area planning committee and is yet to be approved by a planning inspector. If there is an appeal (on grounds of non-determination) then I imagine we’ll see!

The second application was for a change to what many know as the John Allen Centre, whereby B&Q’s building will be subdivided at the end of the B&Q lease providing another Sainsbury’s supermarket as well as some café/restaurant units and four houses fronting onto Rymers Lane. The bulk of the discussion was about a developer contribution to improve the lighting of the area on the other side of the retail park to make things safer for people accessing the site from roads such as Maidcroft Road, Cleveland Drive and Havelock Road. There was also concern about the hours during which the service yard can be used and I hope that proper enforcement of allowed hours will improve matters for some local residents who are being sleep-deprived by some extremely antisocial behaviour by delivery companies. The application was approved.

Full Council

The last full council of 2011 and a ridiculously full agenda! We met at 5pm and I didn’t stop until 10.37pm and even then, had not dealt with the motions on notices, statements and questions.

There were some very important items at this meeting.

The council also considered plans for Barton West and also the latest round of attacks on HMO tenants and landlords. The use of a house as an HMO (that means 3 or more unrelated people living there) is a different planning use class and Labour has made it a requirement that all changes to use class C4 will require planning permission and that change of use from C3 (family home) to C4 will require planning permission. Even more worrying is that planning permission will be refused if there are more than 20% of properties in that street already in use as HMOs. I think that will be catastrophically disastrous for Oxford’s housing situation. We’ll see.

I am utterly appalled at some of the judgemental and social-sorting based on tenure language that is being used by this Labour Council. Try “However, in some areas of the city, high concentrations of HMOs are resulting in changes to the character of the local area, and may also contribute to local parking problems, large numbers of transient households, and the affordability of renting or buying homes in Oxford. This has led some people to believe that their communities are becoming unbalanced, because the number of short‐term tenants with less established community ties has grown too large.”

I think that’s outrageous and hope that lots of Oxford-dwellers will agree. I see it as nothing more than a direct attack on students, honest landlords and anyone elsewho can’t afford to live in Oxford in any other way than in an HMO.

Another thing discussed was the issue of adopting some legislation to allow the licensing of horse-drawn carriages in the City Centre. This was being recommended by the General Purposes Licensing Committee but I am pleased that the Full Council saw that any horse drawn carriages would be inappropriate in such a constrained City as Oxford for reasons both of horse welfare and pedestrian, cyclist safety. I was glad to be one of the 27 that voted against the Licensing Committee’s recommendation. This shocking video from New York is one of the things that convinced me to vote against.

A long and tiring meeting and some really stupid planning decisions rushed through by our current megalomaniac Labour Administration if you ask me!

Union Street Student Accommodation permission granted and subsequent councillor abuse

Just a quick post to say that planning permission was granted at yesterday’s planning review committee with an extra condition that lighting be installed on the access route – this was made a grampian condition meaning that if it can’t be met (e.g. if the landowner of the access route, the county council in this case, refuses to allow lighting) then the permission will fall. I chaired the meeting and it passed off without any bad behaviour at all.

I would say more about the meeting but I have been subjected to an extremely foul email today from one of the Governors of East Oxford Primary School so I want to deal with that first. It contained:

“…Tony was seated at the head of the table, a place/position which he should not have taken, especially from what he did early by making such statements. Everything looked pre-planned beautifully. How was he even allowed in the room is beyond me? … Furthermore I must add how ashamed I am, that I have to live in a city, where people (councillors) like these have powers, and misuse them however they please. Undermining the greater good in our communities, especially for our school. Dismissing what’s important and siding with something that would do more harm than good. Personally I don’t know how they got their seats in the first place, or why they gave the go ahead on such an important matter, obviously this was an under hand job, maybe bribery was used?…

<name removed by me> (parent governor E.O.P.S)“

I won’t name the sender here but the email went to all 48 members of Oxford City Council so I guess it will get out eventually. It really is not nice being accused of accepting a bribe and I must say, if the sender had been listening at the meeting the sender would have noticed that I recorded an abstention on the vote. There was one other abstention, one against and 6 in favour of the application so it would have been granted however I voted and I don’t think anyone can reasonably accuse me of taking sides – I ran the meeting fairly and objectively as I hope those present will testify!

The meeting was not helped either by the Oxford Mail publishing an inflammatory story that same day that tried to pitch me against the residents by using a photo of Union Street onto which I had been superimposed. I consider that photo to have been extremely misleading and unhelpful to the planning process. If you click the picture here to enlarge it you’ll see around the border of my head how badly the journalists have pasted my image onto the scene.

Site Visit for Union Street Planning Application

We visited the site of planning application for some student accommodation in a constrained little site off Union Street in East Oxford, near to East Oxford Primary School and one of its external sports areas. This application was approved by West Area Planning Committee last month and was call-in to Planning Review Committee. We should have heard it on 30th November but as that was the day of strikes, I and many other committee members agreed not to cross the picket line and to defer the meeting. We now re-determine the application on 15th December.

This application is the one that was the subject of the nasty anti-student comments I posted about last month so I thought we ought to have a site visit to try to get a feel for the site and try to understand the position of all people and groups concerned.

I was grateful that two planning officers were able to attend and explain the site to us, with the proper plans. I attended along with Nuala Young and Mike Rowley so that means at least some of the committee will have first-hand experience of the site. I’m sure others will know it too as it is currently the site of the “Plebs College” squat so it’s been in the news a lot lately.

I shan’t comment here on my views on the merits or otherwise of the application as I want to be able to listen carefully to what people say and make an unbiased decision at the meeting on Thursday 15th December. Click the picture to see a larger version of it.

Redevelopment plans for Luther Court

I went to an interesting exhibition today about a2dominion‘s plans for redevelopment of Luther Court. This is an area of social housing in a difficult and constrained part of the City Centre and it would be fair to say it has been the victim, and site of, a lot of antisocial behaviour over the years. It comprises of lots of rather small and poky one-bedroomed flats that I’m sure are not ideal for the well-being both mental and physical of their tenants. Currently the accommodation all faces, and has its access from, the North East side facing onto Luther Street Medical Centre and O’Hanlon House. I think it would be fair to say that the interaction of some potential clients unable to be accepted by the Medical Centre or O’Hanlon House, and some of the more vulnerable tenants in the current Luther Court has not always produced optimal outcomes. (click the image below to see a non-squashed version of it!)

The new plan is to demolish the current accommodation and to rebuild it on more levels and facing South West onto Thames Street with access only from that side. The new accommodation would include more two- and possibly three-bedroomed units suitable for small families and would be to much higher standards of building, light provision and so on. There is a plan to include lots of secure bike parking and some student accommodation. The development would be completely car-free and residents would be excluded from having City Centre residents’ parking permits.

I filled in a comment sheet and made the following points:

While I welcome purpose-built student accommodation, particularly in the City Centre, I do think it works better if there is a resident warden to nip any behaviour or noise issues in the bud. It was indicated that this would probably be done by utilising more mature residents in return for a reduce rent.
I hope the development will utilise renewable energy including Solar Thermal and/or PV systems as these work incredibly well even in our climate and can make a real difference to social tenants struggling to pay ever-increasing fuel bills. Anything that can keep people out a fuel poverty is a good thing in my book!
I welcome this consultation event and encourage a2dominion to have lots more making sure local residents are informed and invited widely and that communication with all local stakeholders is maintained
I asked also that a2dominion take into account the wishes of their current tenants in Luther Court carefully and sensitively. I believe they will and offered to help in any way I can as ward councillor.

As these plans are worked up and come to the planning permission stage I will of course have to back away and keep an open mind about any plans that are actually submitted to the planning process in case I have to take part in a determination of the planning application at a committee. At this stage though I think can honestly, and without prejudicing myself, say things look promising!

I am grateful to a2dominion for keeping me informed as a local councillor at this early stage of planning what could be a really effective and exciting new development.

St Clements Car Park: Call in FAILS

Well the 5pm deadline has passed and only 8 councillors requested a call-in. It needs 12 for a call-in so it fails. This means the council can go ahead and issue the refusal of planning permission but it does of course remain open to the applicant to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

I think not calling this in was the right decision as I believe West Area Planning committee last week was run openly and fairly and got to its decision in a correct and proper way.

The saga of St Clements – tweets and many emails

Some readers will know that I like to tweet (Twitter – @tonybrett) about things going on in the council as I believe it makes for more open and accountable democracy. As I was just an audience member at West Area Planning I tweeted about it in some detail. BBC Radio Oxford picked up on this and rang me at home at 0640 on Thursday morning for comments and an interview about the process. I was happy to oblige although I must say getting a phone call at 0640 did make me think for a fleeting moment that someone must have died! Thankfully that was not the case and I was able to explain how call-in works.

Since then there have been a lot of emails to all councillors asking us not to call in the planning application. I am sending a standard response which I hope is explaining how things progress from here. The decision was published on Friday morning which means there must be call in requests from 12 City Councillors if the application is to be re-determined at a meeting of the Planning Review Committee, which I chair. At the moment I have seen five call in requests but there may be more that have not been shared with other councillors. Here’s what I’ve sent (not the picture!) :

Dear <name>,

The application has not been called in.

Some councillors have requested a call in but as far as I am aware only five have done that so far. The application will only be called in if twelve councillors have requested that by 5pm on Monday 19th September.

It is possible for the Head of City Development to call the application in also, within that same deadline, but there is no indication of that happening at this stage.

It is not my intention to support the call in as I believe West Area committee was run fairly and properly but we must accept that it is the democratic right of other councillors to do so if they feel that’s what those they represent want them to do.

I am keeping an open mind about the acceptability or otherwise of the development as I am the chair of Planning Review Committee and will need to be able to chair a discussion openly and fairly if the call-in succeeds.

I hope this explains things at what I of course understand must be a stressful time.

Yours,

Tony Brett

West Area Planning Committee – St Clements

I attended this meeting tonight as I value seeing how others chair meetings and how discussion of planning applications proceeds. Oscar is a good chair and it’s good to learn techniques from him.

Among others, today’s West Area Planning considered the controversial application to build student accommodation on the St. Clement’s car park. There were some very impassioned speeches from many parties and it was clear that the opposers had really brought the cavalry with some very respected planning consultants, senior folk from local businesses and from the Queen’s College.

There seemed to be several areas of discussion. These included access to Angel and Greyhound Meadow, proximity to Queens’ College’s listed Florey Building, the quality of the buildings proposed and the impact on local traders of the removal of the parking facility (in total during building and then reduced after completion).

Many councillors asked excellent questions and made very good and valid points both against and in favour of the application. Eventually there was motion to refuse planning permission, proposed by Oscar Van Nooijen (the chair) and seconded by Graham Jones (Lib Dem St. Clements’ councillor). Five voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs Jones, Benjamin, Van Nooijen, Goddard, Gotch) with four against the motion (Cllrs Price, Cook, Khan and Tanner). The motion thus passed and planning permission was refused.

The council procedures mean that there is a 2 working day period during which the decision can be called in for a second (and fresh) consideration at Planning Review Committee.

Planning Review Committee: Old Road Campus

The second Planning Review Committee that I have chaired. This was a reconsideration of the East Area Planning Committee’s decision to grant planning permission to Oxford University to build a new research building on the Roosevelt Drive site near Old Road. I am a member and employee of Oxford University so I had to consider carefully whether I could approach the decision with an open mind. As I work for the central IT department of Oxford University and have nothing to do (in my work, rather than councillor, capacity) with the estates department and have no vested interest in the Medical Sciences Division I decided that although I clearly had a personal interest in the matter it was not enough to prejudice me as there are many thousands of people in our City who have some relationship or another with Oxford University.

The meeting proceeded smoothly with some very well-considered and well-presented evidence and opinions both from objectors and applicants. The Planning Officer, Felicity Byrne presented very well and brought along a County Council Highways Officer (Martin Kraftl) to talk about the possibilities with regard to controlled parking zones. The professional advice was extremely useful, as always.

After quite a bit of debate and careful questioning of all parties there was eventually a motion to approve the planning application with some additional conditions and that passed so the permission is granted. The additional conditions are:

That the landscaping to the tree belt on Old Road includes new hedge and tree planting to the western edge, and mixed evergreens to the eastern end;
That the hours for deliveries during the construction of the development be controlled to avoid peak hours and the beginning of the school day;
That the external lighting to the campus be designed to avoid Light spillage, in order to prevent nuisance being caused to nearby residential properties;
That details of the maintenance regime for the attenuation tanks to be used in the drainage systems be submitted for approval by officers.

I hope these will go as far as possible in alleviating some of the concerns of the objectors.

Old Road Campus Site Visit

This is another planning application called in to Planning Review committee. This time from East Area Planning Committee.

Quite a few councillors visited the site and we also took time to view the scene from Bickerton Road and from the garden and some rooms of a local resident’s house that she very kindly gave us access to.

This was again an extremely informative visit that I think will make sure planning review committee next week makes as informed a decision as it can.

Planning Review Committee is turning out to be quite a lot of work but I do think it is important to consider applications properly as they have a big and lasting effect on many people in our City. The work is also enjoyable and interested and it’s an honour to be the chair of such an important committee. I am grateful to my Labour colleagues for allowing me to have it.