Posts in Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum
If shops are selling alcohol directly to juvenile minors then that is a matter
for Trading Standards, the Police, and the Courts to deal with, shops caught
selling alcohol to juvenile minors can, ultimately, lose their trading license.
Police and Trading Standards would need to view CCTV footage to be able to
prove it, and probably mount one of their sting operations using a Juvenile to
make a test purchase for them to get evidence. They do this in order to be
able to catch the shop in the act of making a transaction. Once the Police and
Trading Standards have got their evidence and proof they then need to bring a
prosecution in Court.
You could also try mounting CCTV cameras on the front of your property along
with infra red trip switch activated security lighting which might deter
vandalism. I have heard it said that having CCTV on your property can get you
a five percent discount on your home insurance bill. I know someone who
adopted both these measures as a result of vandalism to his property and the
problem immediately ceased, so there you have it.
That what anti- social behaivior has done to our fence and empty bottles of
alcohol (found just this morning) been dumped between hedges in our property. I
know it is illigal to sell alcohol to minors but who's checking? Is there
anyone checking the CCTV installed to shops if they are selling to minors?
The following file was added to this topic:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Why do you have to be so negative about every small thing Nicholas, and often
things that matter little? It seems to be positively Pavlovian - or a
'knee-jerk reaction', to fall into the way of using the clichs of which you're
so fond.
Presumably Det Sgt Grant will be disseminating this information through various
channels, but obviously saw a forum which directly relates to the affected area
as a worthwhile means of placing her statement. Incidently, to be
linguistically pedantic, Ruth hasn't 'issued a police statement', she has
performed a public service by posting, at the behest and on behalf of Det Sgt
Grant, a police statement issued by her.
If armed robbery is a 'normal modern fact of life' for you, (what an exciting
life you must lead) it certainly isn't for me, and to have so many incidents in
such a small area in such a condensed time is, in fact, a matter for concern.
If the robbers aren't 'sophisticated' or 'organised', but if - if - they have
real guns, perhaps there's even more danger of their panicking and actually
firing one. Who cares if they're 'hardened, big-time, career-criminal grade'?
They're still frightening, and if soft, small-time, hobby-grade crooks are
taking to the gun, so much the worse. I wonder if you'd be so sanguine if
you'd been in one of the shops or the bank, or on the London coach, when one of
these people carried out their 'normal, modern-life, unsophisticated,
disorganised' crimes.
Detective Claire Grant can only make a statement on this forum via someone
else, because she is not a member. And if she were a contributing member, I
predict that you would be the first to say, Nicholas, that the police should
have better things to do with their time.
It doesn't really matter who does the posting: the police obviously want the
message to get through, and I think most people on the forum will be impressed
that they made the effort, instead of assuming that we would get the statement
via the local media.
I agree that it doesn't look as though the general public are in much danger;
but local businesses need to be wary. It was daft of Lloyds TSB to remove
their security screens recently.
We haven't actually had an armed robbery now for over two days: now that is
news!
I thought it was usual practise for the Police to issue their own statements,
direct to the public and the media in the normal run of things, and not to have
others do it for them. Why is Sergeant Grant not speaking for herself? why
couldn't she get one of her colleagues to do a statement for her? I thought the
Police had their own PR people for these sorts of occasions, why are
Councillors issuing Police statements?
There is nothing extremely unusual or exceptional about these events that I can
see, armed robbery in this day and age is nothing unusual and if anything it is
fast becoming a normal modern fact of life, I am just surprised it has taken so
long to happen in Headington, but statistically speaking it was more a case of
when rather than if, it was going to happen. These armed robbers don't strike
me as being very sophisticated, or very organised, they appear to be working
alone, they don't appear to have physically harmed anyone to any great degree,
and yes they have threatened people which is nasty I agree, but I would say
from what I have heard about these robbers in the local media is that I do not
believe that they are of the hardened big time career criminal grade.
Detective Sergeant Claire Grant from our Headington North neighbourhood police
team has asked me to post up the following statement on her behalf:
We are aware that there is public concern following the recent spate of
robberies in the Headington area. This is extremely unusual for
Headington which as we know is usually a relatively low crime area. We would
like all the residents to know that we as a Neighbourhood team are
working extremely hard along with CID and other departments to investigate
these crimes and provide reassurance to the public. I would
like to urge anyone who has any information regarding these offences to contact
us on 0845 8 505 505.
PS 1872 CLAIRE GRANT
Neighbourhood Sergeant - Headington North
Cowley Police Station
724-5113
07800702438
Surely the point about the so-called idyllic aesthetic inadvertently created by
builders of yore, and which we are striving to preserve with our conservation
regulations, is that it is aesthetically pleasing (in the main) whereas the
modern architectural vernacular is (in my opinion) mainly hideous - safe, yet
somehow reminiscent of a child's building set, and cheap-looking. The best
(or at least most celebrated) architects Britain produces seem to have to get
their commissions abroad in a more adventurous Europe or perhaps America. As
for 'pickling our cities so they stultify', the point is valid. But look what
happened to, say Aylesbury, Abingdon and Basingstoke, even Cowley, who weren't
pickled when certain plans were allowed, and whose aesthetics have been ruined
utterly by the depressing, concrete masses that have been allowed there.
The 'gherkin' building in London is at least different, and striking, even if
it more closely resembles those free gifts you used to get in cornflakes
packets, a sort of zeppelin which you tipped with a single explosive cap and
threw to the ground to make a popping sound. But it's a rarity. Mostly the
stuff that goes up is soulless, boring, pedestrian and probably that partly
because the materials are cheap and nasty. Or else they're all glass - very
tedious.
The biggest irony of all this is of course that the vast majority of
the sort of building we seek to "conserve" and the pretty built
environment we admire was all done without so much as a planning
officer becoming a glint in a government minister's eye.
And certainly all of Britain's "World Heritage" standard areas such
Bath and Edinburgh, and of course our very own city centre.
As I say - I think the Quarry conservation area was created while we
were on the previous planning committee, Mary. SO you needn't have to
have been a lifetime resident to have got unexpectedly caught up in
new regulations since you moved in.
I suppose I ought to be careful about what I say here, in danger of
disparaging our own School of the Built Environment as I am, but we
have, as Richard Rogers has said countless times, an awful standard of
education - especially cross disciplinary education - in the built
environment in this country. To be fair, it is the system rather than
the educators or students I am having a pop at here.
Aarchitecture students learn little about planning (I've been invited
to give talks to them and was shocked to find them not knowing even
what a "Local Plan" was until their post-graduate studies) and all
about egotistical design statement making. Planning students learn
little about three-dimensional design in favour of what another former
councillor called "purely Stalinist land use planning". Real estate
type students are brought up in a land market that is deliberately
fragmented in the name of private profit rather than public realm.
Construction students tend to be filled with ideas of "design and
build" and how to write architects (and the other professions) out of
the process entirely whenever possible!
Rogers suggests that rather like medics, all four should do a
standard, common undergraduate course and learn about all their
professions and then specialize later. Perhaps then we would have
people with sufficient vision to match those visionary gentlemen
developers of old, who, as if by miracle, were able to plan the most
beautiful townscapes without so much as a government agent ever having
to get involved!
Instead we get all caught up in conserving some idyllic aesthetic that
has never really existed before the second half of the twentieth
century and preserving (whatever they say that they deny "preserving")
some idea of pretty perfection that ninety-nine times out of a hundred
did not even cross the minds of the original builder. And,
incidentally, in the process, pickle our cities so that they stultify
and cannot adapt to changing circumstances such as household change
and instead lead us to demand urban sprawl to sort it all out.
If you choose to live in a Conservation Area or in a Listed building, you
should know what you're getting into at the beginning - your solicitor ought
to highlight it when you decide to purchase the property. The planning and
conservation laws aren't simply arbitrary. They're there to preserve the
character and environment of historic areas for future generations. Yes, it
can be a pain - our house is listed so we have to get approval even for
internal alterations whigh the public cannot see. But if it were a free for
all, we'd probably end up with lots of soulless buildings and the planners
would get constant criticisms from the public for allowing their heritage to
be destroyed.
Mary Clarkson
I sent these comments on Tesco's application to the City Council -
'I object to the application 08/02606/FUL. Specifically I object to the
demolition of The Friar public house.
New Marston is a large and growing area that has for many years been served by
three pubs, The Somerset, The Friar and The Jack Russell. The Somerset has now
been turned into a cocktail bar and restaurant. Pubs are the places for people
to meet and socialise. To take away another one of these pubs risks creating a
large area of lifeless suburb. I think it especially that important suburban
pubs such as The Friar are saved - they are close to where people live, and are
vital as meeting places for societies, places to play games - and just to drink
and chat. The Friar has a large and potentially beautiful garden, which is a
very good place for local families to enjoy on warm days.
Point 12.9.9. of the Oxford Local Plan recognises the importance of public
houses -
'Public houses have two distinct roles: firstly, in mainly residential areas as
a community facility; and secondly as part of the historic legacy of Oxford.
The City Council will prevent their loss to alternative uses unless a lack of
viability can be clearly demonstrated over a reasonable time-scale, which is
not due to operational or marketing practices. Viability should take into
account a range of factors such as evidence of the property having been
properly marketed for its existing use at a reasonable price, the catchment
population, other facilities in the area serving the same market, and
accessibility by modes other than the private car.'
When Arkells were trying to sell the pub in 2007 there was strong interest from
the Vale Brewery Company of Brill, but negotiations fell through at a late
stage. Policy RC 18 in the Local Plan states that -
'Planning permission will only be granted for the change of use of a public
house if one or more of the following criteria are met:
a. no other potential occupier can be found following a realistic effort to
market the premises for its existing use; b. substantial evidence of
non-viability is submitted; and c. it is demonstrated that suitable alternative
public houses exist to meet the needs of the local community'
I believe none of the criteria set out in Policy RC 18 have been proved to
have been met, and therefore change of use should not be granted.
I have no doubt that with good and imaginative ownership The Friar could again
be a vibrant and successful pub at the heart of the community.'
I agree with Jock in that people should be able to do what they like to
their own homes. We haven't paid the exorbitant amounts of money for our homes
in
order for some people, with nothing better to do, tell us what we can or
can't do with our homes.
Just for the record, yes I do have upvc double glazing,and the remit the
company were given when we ordered was to make them look as similar to the
original windows as was possible. We got really fed up with the curtains
billowing
into the rooms every time the wind blew!
I do agree that some replaced windows are ugly(in my opinion) but it is only
an opinion and I'm sure the relevant householders would not agree.
It's good we live in a diverse society, if we were all the same, areas would
look identical and boring!
Debbie Evans
Personally I disagree with Jock about people being allowed to do what they like
with their property, when you allow an absolute free for all you get the end
result one sees in the area of Headington that I live in, I believe that there
should be a tight control put on the replacement of windows and doors in my
view, as you only have to come to the street where I live to see what a hideous
mess it looks, virtually every house in the street has now had its windows
replaced, and a very unsightly, and ghastly mess it makes the neighbourhood
look too, that people have replaced their windows with UPVC Double Glazed units
totally out of keeping with the period age of their properties.
As a result of bad advice usually, or in some cases a lack of aesthetic taste
and guidance as well, people end up putting in replacement windows that are
totally out of scale and proportion than are needed in order to suit the
character and size of their property. So basically I believe people need to be
prevented from being able to desecrate their properties, and from being able to
destroy the aesthetic look of a neighbourhood, therefore overall Conservation
Areas are a good idea, and have a lot to be said for them.
Personally I think the idea of a conservation area preventing people
doing what they want with their private property is wrong in
principle, but accept that as public policy they may be the best
compromise in preserving what other people find attractive or
historical about an area.
However in the case of Headington Quarry, I doubt you would actually
get one. Not that I am saying "there is nothing worth preserving" in
Quarry, but that it is not a contiguous area of particular
architectural merit. Osney Island has it because to this day it
remains very largely rows of historical workers terraces that as a
whole is considered worth preserving as much as possible. In Quarry
I'd suggest it is much more of a mixed bag already.
Just in the road that has given rise to this discussion, Trinity Road,
there is already quite and eclectic mish-mash of styles and periods
represented, right up to the present day - some of which adds little
of particular merit to the overall quality of built environment.
There are other reasons of course for Quarry as a whole to be a
conservation area - the quirky land layout owing to the presence of
the quarry pits themselves makes the whole area "quite interesting"
but the interest is not entirely down to the built environment
particularly.
I don't know when it was made a conservation area (I actually have a
vague remembrance of it happening within my time on the city council
so maybe it's only been a decade?) but it was probably, looking at the
area, intended to give some more control over the future than to
preserve some particular aspect as a, Article 4 Directive would tend
to be used for.
Note also that most Article 4 Directions, although made at the initiative of
the planning authority, can't come into force without the consent of the
Secretary of State.
Chris D
Julia, Conservation Area status for the Quarry has certainly made it easier
to refuse or at least improve the nastier planning applications there in
recent years - maybe not as much as one would have liked, but such is the
nature of planning control these days!
Tony
Be careful what you wish for I would advise, I happen to have a friend who
lives on Osney Island and he tells me that the Article 4 regime they have in
place is widely disliked, and is widely flouted apparently.
It seems that people on Osney Island just quietly do stuff without getting
planning permission. That article 4 means that you have to have single pane
windows in the front, and you can do what you like to the back of the house
because no one sees it, and that Article 4 means that there are only x numbers
of colours you can paint your exterior walls, and x number of restricted
colours you are allowed to use to paint your window frames, doors, down pipes
and gutters with.
As Julia points out Conservation does appear largely to be just a label,
afterall to see the proof of that one only has to go and look at Laurel Farm,
near St Andrews Church, in Old Headington, supposedly a Conservation Area, and
yet Laurel Farm has been desecrated with inappropriate doors and windows and
they appear to have got away with it.
Thank you Ruth, that is very enlightening.
How many people would agree that this should be changed?
Why don't the local councillors for Quarry itself take the lead in implementing
an Article 4 Direction?
Frankly, when I look around Quarry, I can't see any signs at all of any
conservation going on. It appears to be a label, and not much else.
Well, maybe I wouldn't say "naive", David, but over-optimistic.
I have yet to see any sign that the Council will take notice of what ordinary
folks like us say in this forum, or in the bus-users group, or in letters to
our local councillor for that matter.
I agree with you strongly about the new proposals - they are totally negative
in their impact - and I put a message on the Central Forum (which I thought was
the logical place for it) to that effect a couple of months ago. But whatever
people say in newspapers etc I would be prepared to bet you a packet of crisps
that the Council does g ahead and impose the plan.
Bus transport in Oxford has got worse and worse for the past ten years, and the
result of saying so is just that person label you a "moaner". Yes, the centre
of the city is just a scruffy mess since pedestrianization, and it takes far
too long to get where people want to go to. Far too long! People have
pedestrian shopping malls if they want to get away from traffic (at least they
had some until this planning disaster left the Westgate an empty shell).
The difference between the feudal system and the modern system is that
under the feudal system, the peasants had to pay a hefty amount of tax to their
rulers, and had no say at all in the decisions implemented, whereas nowadays,
of course, the City Council charges us hardly anything at all and ...oh, well,
so much for that argument.
Thank you David; a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post.