Disruption

Is anyone else disturbed by the lengthy disruption that seems likely to be
caused by the construction of the JR-Churchill pipeline and the London
Road-Latimer Road student accommodation? This part of Headington is going to be
one big construction site.

I am not sure whether those who did not attend the Headington Ward Focus
Meeting on 31 October will know about the hospital pipeline yet. The displays
should be taking place soon: has anyone had notification about them?

The pipe will run from the JR to the Churchill, and as far as I can see the
affected roads will be Sandfield Road, Latimer Road, and Stapleton Road (the
ones that had all the coloured markings earlier this year).

If the students flats proposed for Latimer Road get planning permission on 2
December, let's hope that there is some liaison between the hospitals trust and
the developers.... The laying of the pipeline will apparently take eighteen
months, starting early next year.

A further 18 months of hole diggery to... pump hot water a mile up the
road? Plus futher diggery whenever it inevitably goes wrong.

Sounds a bit mad to me.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <

Rest of post

Could someone explain to the uneducated what the purpose of being able to move
hot water between the two sites is? Surely it'd be cheaper/better/easier to
build in water heating redundancy locally at each site?

There is an account here:
http://www.tonyox3.com/2015/11/the-jr-to-churchill-heat-transfer-scheme.html.
I'm sure I'll be corrected, but in summary the JR produces too much heat and
rather than waste it, it can be transferred up the road to the Churchill, which
presumably doesn't have enough.

There is a notice about the work here, but it doesn't give enough details:
http://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/newsletters/november-2015/opportunities/important-updates/john-radcliffe-hospital-energy-project-update
It says that there will be a display about it "in late November at Level 2 of
the John Radcliffe Hospital near the League of Friends Café corridor".

The Government Energy Fund is paying for this work, which will cost an
eye-watering £14.8million.

The laying of the pipes along the roads won't take eighteen months: there is a
lot of work to do each end first.

This can't possibly be the whole story. When my boiler produces 'too much
heat' I tend to turn it down.

The cynic in me wonders if it's using one peverse incentive (Renewable Heat
Incentive) which stupidly encourages you to burn as much as is humanly
possible, coupled with another fund agreeing to pay to take this expensive
heat away.

But I'm sure a more sane explanation will be forthcoming.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Stephanie Jenkins <
<email obscured>> wrote:

>
> There is a notice about the work here, but it doesn't give enough details:
>
>
http://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/newsletters/november-2015/opportunities/important-updates/john-radcliffe-hospital-energy-project-update

Rest of post

Now given there's a bit of a heat loss in transit I was just wondering, if they
are running it along the middle of a road, it would be sufficient to keep the
road frost and snow free in the winter?!!

For those interested in such schemes elsewhere, the Pimlico District Heating
Undertaking -
http://www.cwh.org.uk/locations/churchill-gardens/the-pimlico-district-heating-undertaking-pdhu-/
- was worth a visit during this year's Open House weekend in London. It was set
up to take waste heat from Battersea Power Station beneath the Thames to
provide affordable heating and hot water to Pimlico residents. The PDHU now
generates and distributes its own heat and power with remarkable efficiency.

And if you have a head for heights and ladders it's worth a visit, if it opens
again, for the view over London from the top of the heat/water storage tower.

It is curious that there is no information for the general public about the
work, even though it has already started, and I understand that yellow dots are
appearing in the affected streets.

I found this scrap in the minutes of the Trust Board meeting of 9 September
2015:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/trust-board/2015/september/documents/TB2015.103-chief-executive-report.pdf

6. The Hospital Energy Scheme

The Trust has commenced an 18-month £14.8 million project to upgrade the
heating and hot water systems that supply the John Radcliffe and Churchill
Hospitals.

The project, known as the Hospital Energy Project, is critical to ensure that
energy systems at both hospitals are flexible enough to meet future growing
demands for heating and hot water as hospital patient numbers increase, and
facilities expand and improve.

The new energy systems will offer both hospitals better resilience and less
reliance on the national power grid in the high demand months of winter, reduce
energy costs as well as reduce carbon emissions from both sites, while
providing the ability to meet future environmental compliances.

Cycling through the JR on my way to work today, I can see a lot of
earth-moving equipment and a big pile of what looks like (to my untutored
eye) thermally insulated pipe near the Woodlands Rd exit.

So it may be the street-diggery phase may be sooner rather than later.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <
<email obscured>> wrote:

> It is curious that there is no information for the general public about
> the work, even though it has already started, and I understand that yellow
> dots are appearing in the affected streets.
>
> I found this scrap in the minutes of the Trust Board meeting of 9
> September 2015:
>
>
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/trust-board/2015/september/documents/TB2015.103-chief-executive-report.pdf

Rest of post

Yes - street-diggery is imminent.

The following text has been circulated to parents via Sandfield Nursery.
Meanwhile the Hospital seems to be working on a communications plan that is
very much on a need-to-know basis - such that they'll get in touch just before
the pipeline gets to your road. This is just poor work - do they not think
we'd notice them painting their markings on the roads?

Mike
+++++++++++++++++++++

Purpose of Hospital Energy Project

This is an 18 month construction programme, for the purpose of upgrading the
heating and hot water systems that supply the John Radcliffe and Churchill
Hospitals. This is critical to ensure that energy systems at both hospitals
are flexible enough to meet future growing demands for heating and hot water as
patient numbers increase, while facilities expand and improve.   It will also
save the hospital millions of pounds in backlog maintenance and in addition
greatly assist with reducing our carbon footprint.

Construction programme

Work started at the JR in October, near to the Industrial Block, and has now
reached the area opposite the Women’s Centre. The next stage is a soft dig
route under the trees, adjacent to Manor field.   Following that, the project
will pass in front of Health and Wellbeing, Arthur Sanctuary House and Child
base nursery, before it heads out onto the main highways. See attached plans
for these next 3 stages.

>From 9th November – soft dig route along David Edwards Way, by Manor field

Followed by:

Phase 1 Woodlands – the staff parking outside ASH will be affected at this
point.   Nursery and drop-off laybys not affected at this stage, as they will
have access via Woodlands Rd as normal.

Phase 2 Woodlands – the road will be closed directly outside the nursery.
Access to the area will be by way of a re-direction onto the main hospital
site, up the hill, through the ‘fire gate’ near the tennis courts and then down
newly constructed ramp into a temp drop off area where the staff parking
outside ASH currently is. Signage will be provided to redirect cars and
clearly mark the area for “Nursery drop off only, no parking permitted at any
time”.   CHILDBASE: please note I will have a separate plan drawn up showing
this route for you to send to parents/users. “Once I have received this
information I will of course forward it on to you”

Timescales

Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are expected to take around 6 weeks each. Dependent
upon when Phase 1 is completed, Phase 2 may be delayed until after the
Christmas/New Year break. In this case Phase 2 would start around 3rd Jan – TO
BE CONFIRMED.

External Route

Once the construction is complete in Woodlands Road, construction will progress
off site as follows:

-              Sandfield Road
-              London Road
-              Latimer Road
-              All Saints
-              Stapleton Road
-              Old Road
-              Churchill Drive.

The press launch for this project will be held by the Trust on 30 November. A
subsequent meeting with residents is being planned as people quite reasonably
want to know things like "Will it be noisy?" "What time of the day will work
start and stop?", "Where can I park my car while work is going on outside my
house?" etc. The date for the residents' meeting isn't set yet but is likely to
be some time mid-December, Cllr Altaf-Khan and I will make sure residents in
affected areas will be notified.

The contractors cannot arrange the meeting with residents until the press
launch is over! It's my understanding that plans will be displayed at the two
hospitals at a time not yet specified to be announced at the launch.

I already have contact details for the contracts manager and the works manager
who will be available on site during the project, but we're waiting on the
launch before more information can be released.

Our secret pipe's no secret any more. Today is the big day of the press
conference about the Hospital Energy Project.

I am sure that those invited to the press conference will be able to tell us
more, but meanwhile the following information has been put up this morning on
the OU Hospitals NHS Trust's website:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/news/article.aspx?id=392
Note that you can follow them on Twitter: @ouh_estates with the hashtag
#ouhenergy

I am uploading a photograph of the pipes as they progress through the JR so
that you know what to expect soon in a street near you. The trench is bigger
than I had envisaged....

The posted image heat_pipe_trench_jr_smaller.jpg

heat_pipe_trench_jr_smaller.jpg 1.94mb

Now, I like a well thought-out communications strategy. I think that's a
sensible approach for a big organisation, but this is laughable.

Today, the trust held a press conference and at the same time put out materials
on email. I got three sets of PowerPoint slides with pictures, but precious
little text.

What's good is that the trust has given the councillors much more detail -
which is now up on their site:
http://ruthwilkinson.mycouncillor.org.uk/2015/11/30/reaction-to-hospital-energy-project-briefing/

Problem is, it shouldn't be their job to put this stuff out. So, you'll see it
includes *some* details of road closures. Roads will be closed at one end, or
(I understand) with London & Old Roads, they'll be closed in parts. You'll see
that the London & Old road closures overlap. Has anyone looked at the traffic
in Headington at rush hour and thought what that means? The residential streets
will be shut at one end for weeks - *but* closing All Saints Rd does the same
job.

How did the County come to agree this plan without any consultation with people
who live here? This is going to be awful. Plus there's a slew of unanswered
questions - this is a big deep trench - what are the consequences of digging
it?

The Headington Ward city and county councillors are hoping to hire All Saints
Church Hall for a public meeting next Wednesday 9th Dec from 7pm to get some of
people's questions answered. Just waiting on room booking confirmation and
we'll promote this shortly. We have invited the Trust to attend, and we are
also hoping that the County's officer who agreed the closures can come along
too. Do check the Trust's website as they have promised to post up answers to
the questions we gave them from residents. Just about to email the City Council
about arrangements for rubbish and recycling collections...

Mike, you hit the nail completely on the head with this highly pertinent
comment:

"How did the County come to agree this plan without any consultation with
people who live here? This is going to be awful. Plus there's a slew of
unanswered questions - this is a big deep trench - what are the
consequences of digging it?"

As a relatively recent arrival to the neighbourhood (April 2015) I'm
astonished by the democratic deficit.

And it looks like the monstrous five-story student residence on London and
Latimer roads will be going up at exactly the same time.

Too much.

Jeff Crisp

Tel: 07494028089

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Ratcliffe <<email obscured>>
wrote:

> Now, I like a well thought-out communications strategy. I think that's a
> sensible approach for a big organisation, but this is laughable.
>
> Today, the trust held a press conference and at the same time put out
> materials on email. I got three sets of PowerPoint slides with pictures,
> but precious little text.
>
> What's good is that the trust has given the councillors much more detail -
> which is now up on their site:
>
http://ruthwilkinson.mycouncillor.org.uk/2015/11/30/reaction-to-hospital-energy-project-briefing/

Rest of post

If you missed the item on the Headington hospital heatpipe on BBC South Today
last night, you can see it here on the iPlayer (just over four minutes from the
start), *but note that it expires at 7pm today (1 Dec)*:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qmrnp/bbc-oxford-news-30112015
It includes an interview with Patrick Coulter of the Highfield Residents'
Association (which is going to bear the brunt of the work).

I agree with Mike: after waiting all this time for proper information from the
hospitals trust, we haven't really been given it on their website, especially
with regard to road closure dates. Perhaps they are afraid the dates might
slip? Or are the dates that Ruth has kindly provided on her website just the
periods when closure is likely to take place, and it won't be as bad as it
looks? I just can't believe that Stapleton Road and Sandfield Road will have
to be closed for over two months, and Latimer Road for over three months!

I will paste below the dates of the road closures that Ruth has given. This is
the situation as at 1 Dec 2015 and may change:

All Saints Road: 4 Jan–27 Jan 2016
Stapleton Road: 11 Jan–15 Mar 2016
Old Road: 23 Feb–13 Apr 2016
Sandfield Road: 1 Feb–22 Apr 2016
London Road: 9 Mar–14 Apr 2016
Latimer Road: 21 Mar–30 Jun 2016

As I understand it, the minor roads will be completely closed to through
traffic, but London Road and Old Road will be partly open and controlled by
manual traffic lights.

I hope that the "Access to Headington" works don't take place simultaneously
with this pipe-laying. We were told by the Hospitals Trust speaker at the Ward
Focus meeting last week that the main entrance to the hospital will have to be
closed while the work on Headley Way is being done, which I find unimaginable.

>
>
>
> I agree with Mike: after waiting all this time for proper information from
> the hospitals trust, we haven't really been given it on their website,
> especially with regard to road closure dates. Perhaps they are afraid the
> dates might slip? Or are the dates that Ruth has kindly provided on her
> website just the periods when closure is likely to take place, and it won't
> be as bad as it looks? I just can't believe that Stapleton Road and
> Sandfield Road will have to be closed for over two months, and Latimer Road
> for over three months!
>
>
c. 100 days to dig a not-particularly-deep hole (1m by 1m) down all of -
what - 300m of road, attach up some pipes and fill it in again ?

There must be more to it than that.

Seems par for the course. The chinese can put up a 57-storey skyscraper in
19 days, but it takes us over a year to put a lane through the middle of a
roundabout. :-(

Rest of post

I have read the Hospital Energy Project Briefing and it still doesn't provide
what I would call an explanation of why one hospital produces too much heat,
cannot regulate it, and thinks it's worth digging up the whole neighbourhood to
transmit that heat to another hospital.

http://ruthwilkinson.mycouncillor.org.uk/2015/11/30/reaction-to-hospital-energy-project-briefing/
The whole thing sounds like the plot of a Terry Pratchett novel.

I think what gets me is not just the disruption, but (according to the BBC News
report on it) the JR is going from 4 boilers to 1 (what happens when 1 of 1
breaks down - was easier when it was 1 of 4 surely).... and secondly, the
scheme will save both hospitals £1m per year. At a cost of £15m to install.
Now excuse my elementary maths calculation, but 15 years just to break even,
and thats assuming the install doesn't go over budget, let alone the running /
repair costs associated with this magnificent (single) boiler.

I have to agree with Nom, the length of time taken to do any roadworks in
Oxfordshire is indicative of the disruption heading our way. At least its not
taking 16 months to redesign two of the busiest roundabouts in the City, and
only have what looks like 3 people working on them for 6hrs a day.... Oh, hang
on....

It's 1.4 km of pipework from JR to Churchill transmitting steam and/or Low
Temperature Hot Water and paid for though the Carbon and Energy Fund by Aviva
(i.e. our insurance premiums) with a total saving of £2.3m
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/default.aspx

>c. 100 days to dig a not-particularly-deep hole (1m by 1m) down all of -
>what - 300m of road, attach up some pipes and fill it in again ?

> It's 1.4 km of pipework from JR to Churchill transmitting steam and/or Low
> Temperature Hot Water and

Yes, but - one section alone - Latimer Road - is 300 metres long, and the
schedule shows that it's expected to take over 100 days to do it. That
seems rather a long time to install pre-fabricated pipe sections and some
cable, no?

paid for though the Carbon and Energy Fund by Aviva (i.e. our insurance
> premiums) with a total saving of £2.3m
> http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/default.aspx
>
>
*cough*.. not "paid for". "Investment provided by". I.E: they'll be
seeking a return on that investment.

It seems to me highly likely to be *A Good Idea *- not that it's easy to
tell from the information provided. e.g: you have to stare at the timeline
graphic to notice they aren't having a single boiler, there's a combi one @
the JR, a gas boiler @ the churchill and a CHP plant as the last stage
(which helps explain the existence of, and neccesity to be able to dump
'waste heat').

It's just a shame that it seems to be a textbook example of 'how not to get
local residents who are going to be inconvenienced by your plans on your
side'.

Here is an excellent and very detailed piece by Tony OX3 on the Hospital Energy
Project and its now notorious heat pipe:
http://www.tonyox3.com/2015/12/the-hospital-energy-project-summary.html

The "Installing the heat pipe" link shows all the road closure overlaps

Count me in for any organized protest against this outrage. I'm a recent
arrival in the neighbourhood and would love to know what action we might take.
Best regards to all.

Two distinct points: one pragmatic, one about process:
1. Given that the big trench for two heat pipes plus 11KV cable plus
fibre-optic is very probably unstoppable now, let's think of opportunities that
laying it could offer.
For example:
(a) a publicity blitz on public transport and cycling or walking alternatives
to "autosolisme" (French for one-car:one-occupant). Launch it to coincide with
the inevitable delays to vehicular traffic. Just possibly, some "autosolistes"
might choose to travel differently, and to continue to do so even after the
road has been reinstated. The trench-laying could be a Nudge Opportunity.
(b) Traffic calming measures could be installed, such as those that were being
actively discussed in the community 3-4 years ago. For instance: parking
protectors at the ends of some parking bays; texturing of the carriageway
surface; installation of build-outs; perhaps an on-carriageway cycle lane in
the uphill directions on Stapleton and Latimer Roads: sketch attached [to
London Cycle Design Standards, chapter 3: minimum 1.5m wide]. These measures
could be simple and inexpensive, when the roadway is reinstated afterwards. In
any case, Lime Walk will need to be calmed too, preferably much earlier, by
January 4th when the digging starts on All Saints. Lime Walk residents are
going to have a hard time when the ~2000-2500 vehicles per day on
Stapleton&Latimer (around 30% of the total trans-Highfield traffic) transfer to
them during the works.
(c) valuable data on alterations in traffic flows and speeds due to closure of
one trans-Highfield route and of single-lane working on Old Road could be
gathered (http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5TQ8eTa1zV138tqsz0Zo6s is
relevant).
There must be lots of other opportunities you can think of: let's hear them!
2. The failure of public communication about this project is completely
inexcusable. We await Tony Turton's analysis, but very probably blame in this
case rests on: (a) the Sponsor (OUH Trust); and (b) the Contractor (Vital
Energi) and (c) the highway-alteration Authoriser (Transport section of the
Environment and Economy Directorate of Oxfordshire County Council).
One solution in future: All public highway construction/repair projects (bigger
than a low threshold) should be subject to a planning process identical to a
building alteration/development. This would bring these very disruptive
projects into local decision-making. S106/CIL money should be required as
conditions. Pre-design public consultation should also be obligatory.
Reactions please, either public on this Forum (this thread please!), or by
email privately (click on my name if you're Forum-registered).

Cycle Lanes Latimer Stapleton Roads.pdf 728.82kb

You can now see "frequently asked questions" about the heatpipe answered here
by the OU Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/documents/the-hospital-energy-project-QandA.pdf

The trench will be two metres wide, and the timetable is now as follows
(subject to legal confirmation from Oxfordshire County Council on 7 December):

Vital Energi Dig Team 1
Until 01 Feb: On site of John Radcliffe Hospital
01 Feb–22 Apr: Sandfield Road (working towards London Road)
09 Feb–14 Apr: London Road (working towards Latimer Road)
21 Mar–30 Jun: Latimer Road (working towards All Saints Road)

Vital Energi Dig Team 2
04 Jan–27 Jan: All Saints Road (working towards Stapleton Road)
11 Jan–15 Mar: Stapleton Road (working towards Old Road)
23 Feb–13 Apr: Old Road (working toward Churchill Drive)
29 Apr–24 Jun: Churchill Drive

Thanks to Stephanie for giving the heads up that the FAQs are now available to
peruse; just a couple of points I picked up (I am sure other forum members can
spot more):

In the section answering the question on emergency vehicle access, they claim
that there will be a "24/7 security presence on site during the works" - that's
positive, but where exactly might they be based along the length of the route?

In the answer to the question on refuse collections, it is stated that it is
their intention to collect bins themselves from outside individual properties
and move them to a "single accessible point along the road where refuse service
can complete the collection" - but just who is going to move the bins back from
this central location once they have been emptied? - could be an interesting
new sport for those who do not have a house number painted on their
bin(s)........

Finally if the new system is so darned efficient and super-dooper, does that
mean we can do away with the giant Hospital chimney at the JR?

The Headington Ward councillors have arranged a public meeting about the energy
project at All Saints Church House, New High Street, OX3 7AL next Wednesday 9th
December from 7:00-9:00 pm.

Representatives will attend from both the Trust and the Contractor to answer
your questions. We are posting details of the meeting on community noticeboards
and through letterboxes in:
Sandfield Road including Arthur Sanctuary House, Staunton Road, Woodlands
Road, Woodlands Close, Beech Road, Manor Hospital Reception, London Road
(adjacent to Sandfield/Latimer), Victoria Court, Dorset House Reception,
Latimer Road, The Brambles, Latimer Grange, McMaster House,All Saints Road,
Barrington Close, Bickerton Road, Stapleton Road, Old Road (57-85), Lime Walk.

We are also notifying estates managers of major employers, the bursars of
Headington School and Rye St Antony School, and the managers of London Court,
The Albany and St Luke's, plus the neighbourhood police team and NE Area
councillors. We have contacted the city council about refuse collections and
supplied them (and also Stagecoach) with contact details for the contractors
and Trust website, and are checking to make sure that Fire and Rescue, and
South Central Ambulance Service are informed, along with taxi companies.

I'm sorry the meeting is so near Christmas and all associated distractions but
this is the first date we could book, and as the work on residential roads is
due to start on 4th January, we felt we should go ahead immediately.

What I find particularly irritating about this project is the planners, OUH et
al, deemed to do this without any prior public consultation or contacting
residents and businesses along and close to the trench route and closure areas
as a matter of courtesy. I am assuming, a dangerous thing to do, is that
planning has been in the pipeline (ahem) for more that a year or two. I
wonder if, reflecting on other projects with almost zero advance public and
residential information, they realise that this line of implementation of major
works will alienate quite a high percentage of people affected by this severe
disruption. Be it a truly great financial and environmental plan, or not, this
is a project that will no doubt be referred to in years to come. Should it
prove to save the millions projected, and help save the planet, it will be a
shame it was soured by poor communications. I'm not saying that I am against
it, if proven worthwhile, but information provided in advance has been
substandard, simple as that.

@Guy_Hudson: I have been told by the people involved in the project that the
chimney is staying!

One question for the Wednesday meeting, which I imagine could become quite
'heated'. With respect to parking and rubbish collection arrangements, has any
consideration been given to the needs of people with limited mobility?

I'll leave someone else to do a full account of the public meeting last night.

It does seem extraordinary that a process that they've already started should
still be without so many detailed plans that they could consult on. Although
we are no strangers to roadworks, this is different in that it is a major
incursion into residential streets which raises new questions.

So - big ticket items: London Road will be reduced to 1 lane of traffic
controlled by traffic lights for 4 weeks. There will be no bus lane. I think
I gathered that the work on Old Road will not happen simultaneously, but that
will offer no effective diversion route for the traffic - congested as it is.

120m stretches of Sandfield, Latimer and Stapleton Roads will be closed for
multiple weeks, displacing all cars and allowing no effective access to
driveways etc. Although there are ideas, there are no firm plans for what
happens to the displaced cars. It appears that a plan exists to maintain
access to The Brambles, St Lukes, McMaster house and Latimer Grange. There are
schemes for deliveries, builders materials etc - but we saw no detail. All
Saints Road will be closed twice - once in conjunction with the corner of
Stapleton Rd (thereby closing the North end of Stapleton) and once in
conjunction with the corner of Latimer.

The County has agreed a series of road closure notices - which I assumes ends
the process of consultation (which it could easily be argued never actually
happened).

Mike

Hidden

I understand that laying a pipeline across London Road will be complicated, but
I can't see how it can possibly mean reducing the road to one lane for four
weeks. Was there any explanation offered for this?

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:59:23 +1300
>
> I'll leave someone else to do the full account too! But I will add a few
more points.
>
> (1) First of all, I think we should thank Ruth for arranging this meeting.
Did the University really plan to start work in All Saints Road on 4 January
without facing the people involved? They admitted that they had a problem in
that someone who was going to be doing communications unexpectedly left, but
anything would have been better than nothing. We can expect communications to
be better when Francine Rodriguez takes up her post. [If you google her, she
appears to have been the spokesman for Thames Valley Police.] At the moment
questions to the email address and Twitter account they provided are not being
answered, but they will be.
>
> (2) Each pipe is 12 metres long, and they will be laid one at a time, so no
more than 12m of road will be closed at any one time: they will backfill each
section before opening up the next. [People at the meeting still reckoned that
this would mean about 40 cars could be displaced at any one time.]
>
> (3) The pipe sections can be cut to less than 12m long, and this will be done
where there is a cul-de-sac such as Barrington Close: they will stop one
section of pipework half-way across the opening, and fill it in before starting
the next section, so that people will always be able to get their cars in and
out alongside the work. This will also apply to entrances to St Luke's
Hospital, sheltered accommodation etc.
>
> (4) There will always be pedestrian access to houses, even when they are
enduring the critical phase.
>
> (5) If anyone has a big delivery (e.g. for building work) arriving when their
critical 12m of work is being done, they will allow the vehicle into the
barricaded area. Firms delivering small parcels will be expected to park and
walk to the houses.
>
> (6) They said the trench would be 1.5m wide rather than the 2m mentioned
earlier [but perhaps the latter includes the 0.5m gap they are allowing between
the pavement and the trench?] Soil will be removed from the site while work is
being undertaken.
>
> (7) It may be possible to suspend double yellow lines temporarily in closed
streets so that people can park near their homes.
>
> (8) Someone said that her car insurance policy depended on her parking in her
garage/off-street and asked who would pay if her car was damaged when parked in
the street, and the implication was that she would have to. Similarly the
representative from Oxford Brookes was told that that they would not be
reimbursed for any extra buses they had to lay on to get people in. It does not
appear that there will be compensation for lost business either, e.g. the guest
house on the corner of London Road and Sandfield Road.
>
> (9) There will be a security guard present at all time when the work is being
done (including overnight).
>
> (10) Parking provision can be made by the contractors for anyone with
disabilities who has difficulty getting to their house.
>
> (11) The Vicar of All Saints wanted to know what arrangements there would be
if there were a funeral at his church while All Saints Road was closed, and the
representatives did not seem to know where the church was. [This was a motif
that occurred again and again: the University did not understand our streets at
all.]
>
> (12) Brookes said that they could offer overnight parking at Headington Hill
Hall as long as cars were moved by 7am.
>
> I got the impression that people's concerns (other than where to park) would
probably be solved on an ad hoc basis by the contractors, and we are told that
they will be very helpful. Probably the most serious implication for everyone
(inside and outside the pipe corridor) is the one already mentioned by Mike:
the London Road really will be reduced to just ONE LANE for FOUR WEEKS around
Easter: it will be controlled by traffic lights, operated manually during peak
hours. The Stagecoach representative at the meeting was very concerned, and
felt that the company should have been contacted earlier than Monday, when they
received their first email about it.
>
> Sorry, that ended up longer than I planned! But it was an extremely important
and interesting meeting. About a hundred people were there. Thanks again to
Ruth.
>
>
> Stephanie Jenkins
> Headington ward, Oxford
> About/contact Stephanie Jenkins:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6mK5GfBiM5sHXBvJXQoIW1
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Got Community? ***
> Help us get half way to our goal! E-Democracy still needs to raise
$8,300
> to maintain the forums. So far members have contributed $6,700. Add your
donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
E-Democracy your

Rest of post

The communication and consultation process for this scheme appears to have been
shambolic to date. I wonder, were the standards for the environmental benefits
of the scheme calculated in similar blinkered fashion? Did they factor in the
environmental cost and damage of the additional traffic jams.

Further, did they factor in the economic cost to local businesses and people of
travel disruption? Did they at least consider compensation where appropriate?
After all, one of their own main drivers appears to be financial, so surely
they must be prepared to share the benefits?

If none of these factors were considered can we really conclude that this
extremely disruptive, and soon to be highly unpopular scheme is built on sound
foundations?

When communication and consultation have been so poor, is there a process by
which it can be postponed until local people or their representatives can be
reassured that the whole picture has been considered?

The Hospitals are the first to moan when anything looks likely to impede the
speedy access of ambulances, yet the dispution caused by this, whilst
temporary, will be very significant.
OUH really seems to be setting itself up as the worst neighbour in town, saving
money for itself to the significant detriment and cost of the rest of us.

Ian Davis

Sorry, I have masked my earlier message about the pipe on the online version of
the forum, as they are doing 120 metre stretches at a time with 12 metre pipes,
and I don't want to add to the confusion.

We can probably live with the many inconveniences that this project will cause:
traffic jams, noise, loss of parking spaces, etc. etc. What is totally
inexcusable is the lack of consultation about the heat pipe, and the fact that
work started on the project before residents were even informed of it, let
alone given an opportunity to express their opinions. So who is actually
accountable for this lamentable failure, and can they be censured in any way?

Mark Neal, the OU Hospitals NHS Trust director of the project, apologized many
times at the meeting on Wednesday for the lack of communication, and you can
see it reported here in the press:
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/14137930.Health_bosses_deny_misleading_Headington_residents_over_hospital_pipeline/

It is a shambles rather than deliberate, and Mark Neal said, "there has been no
conspiracy to mislead Headington residents." He admitted though that they
still don't have anyone yet to answer queries from residents via the energy
project website that they have set up:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/default.aspx
and no one is answering messages sent to their Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/OUH_Estates

Councillor Ruth Wilkinson is working hard to make up for the Trust's
deficiencies. It is worth viewing the Headington ward councillors' website
regularly:
http://ruthwilkinson.mycouncillor.org.uk/
Ruth has put up details of the temporary traffic orders that come into force
from 4 January 2016, so people can now see exactly when they may not be able to
access their houses by car.

I don't think I accused the Trust of misleading the people of Headington.

I accused them of preparing a communications strategy for a major capital
project that deliberately controlled the information going out to the community
in an incredibly unhelpful way.

When they had agreed the approach to be taken with Vital Energi - tenders etc
must have happened many months ago - it must have been very clear that this
would cause a major intervention into the streets of Headington. They did not
consult the community.

They must have considered routes (although the alternative route down Osler
Road, New High Street and through the NOC would have been no better) They did
not consult the community.

They commissioned a ground radar company to survey the ground, who left
markings all over the pavements, They did not consult the community - although
it did emerge that an energy link was being considered.

They discussed the route with the county transport people, and then submitted
requests for road closures. They (and the County!) did not consult the
community.

They started actually digging the trenches on their land. They did not consult
the community.

Then, finally, they were ready to *tell* people about it. They organised a
press launch - and insisted it was for accredited press members only. They did
relent, and Councillors and some community members were allowed in. They
refused to organise public meetings before this launch was held.

Now, when the road closures are agreed, the pipe company ready to go, they are
ready to talk to the community. Except, they've failed to second someone to do
the job, and so communications can't be responded to.

This isn't good.

You missed a bit out - where after it became known what was happening
through digging through trust minutes. Residents asked questions. Reporters
asked questions - no replies (as you aptly put it - seems to be on a 'need
to know basis only'). Invitations to take part in radio interview with
local resident - declined.

They're all chatty and community minded when the begging bowl is out and
they want something from us. It seems a different story when the boot is on
the other foot.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mike Ratcliffe <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

> I don't think I accused the Trust of misleading the people of Headington.
>
> I accused them of preparing a communications strategy for a major capital
> project that deliberately controlled the information going out to the
> community in an incredibly unhelpful way.
>
> When they had agreed the approach to be taken with Vital Energi - tenders
> etc must have happened many months ago - it must have been very clear that
> this would cause a major intervention into the streets of Headington.
> They did not consult the community.
>
> They must have considered routes (although the alternative route down
> Osler Road, New High Street and through the NOC would have been no better)
> They did not consult the community.
>
> They commissioned a ground radar company to survey the ground, who left
> markings all over the pavements, They did not consult the community -
> although it did emerge that an energy link was being considered.
>
> They discussed the route with the county transport people, and then
> submitted requests for road closures. They (and the County!) did not
> consult the community.
>
> They started actually digging the trenches on their land. They did not
> consult the community.
>
> Then, finally, they were ready to *tell* people about it. They organised
> a press launch - and insisted it was for accredited press members only.
> They did relent, and Councillors and some community members were allowed
> in. They refused to organise public meetings before this launch was held.
>
> Now, when the road closures are agreed, the pipe company ready to go, they
> are ready to talk to the community. Except, they've failed to second
> someone to do the job, and so communications can't be responded to.
>
> This isn't good.
>
>
> Mike Ratcliffe
> Highfield, Headington
> About/contact Mike Ratcliffe:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mikeratcliffe
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5UE07VbQds83Yn7WYWQej7
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Got Community? ***
> Help us get half way to our goal! E-Democracy still needs to raise
> $8,300
> to maintain the forums. So far members have contributed $6,700. Add
> your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
> E-Democracy your
> Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> http://po.st/amazonsmile
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

Helpful report by Tony OX3 about the Still Unanswered Questions relating to the
Hospital Energy Project:
http://www.tonyox3.com/energy-project-suqs-say-residents/

I think that the lack of communication was deliberate!

When you read the (lack of’) information available and provided, it seems to me
that there are fundamental omissions from the statements made

1. No options of energy strategies were outlined to demonstrate that the option
being implemented was the most economical or energy efficient e.g two sets
local gas fired boiler plant with or without local CHP plant. There are other
questions of ‘load matching’ which I will not mention here but adds to the
questions that should be raised.

2. If the design is as suggested, i.e. totally reliant on a single CHP plant
then there is a considerable risk of non availability of supply with the the
plant being off for simple maintenance or even breakdown. I suspect that there
is duplicate plant on both sites that can take up the load should the CHP plant
fail. If not it is a very risky and poor strategy and design.

3. I believe that the project is effectively a Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
contract masquerading as a carbon reducing scheme that enables the Trust to
avoid investing large capital sums to replace boiler plant on two sites and
simply pay the capital, interest and maintenance costs annually over 25 years
rather than an upfront capital cost plus ‘normal’ maintenance costs. PFI
schemes are not renowned for their cost savings!!! (It may therefore not be the
real cost savings that are quoted!)

4.No mention is made of high electrical cost of pumping / circulating water
pumps that will be used to continually circulate water to the Churchill site.

5. No mention is made of the carbon emissions that will be caused to by traffic
congestion throughout Headington whilst the work is in progress nor of the
vehicles that will be used to transport the materials to and from site , the
excavation / infill of the duct or the manufacture and transport of the
pipework and insulation.

6. Vitali claim that they have extensive experience in this type of work in
which case I would have expected them to advise the Trust that they would need
the community ‘on board’ if the scheme was to be a success. In my view either
the Trust has ignored them, or Vitali themselves have not been involved in
community discussions on previous schemes. To me this has been borne out by the
extremely late discussions with the Council and other authorities? (Police,
Ambulance and Fire Brigade??? plus the Bus Services), plus promises being made
to members attending the recent meeting instigated by the Ruth / Roz.
(Thanks!!!)

Summarising it is my belief that the Trust knew that the boiler plant on the JR
and Churchill sites needed replacing, did not have the cash to replace them,
called in Vitali, either directly or via some form of tendering process based
on a spec that they had prepared, may have asked Vitali to do an Engineering
Option Appraisal, selected / agreed on a preferred option, signed the contract
and got started. This whole process would take some considerable time, with
ample opportunity to discuss it at the various local community meetings that
regularly take place. I also suspect that the contract cannot be readily
changed / withdrawn from without considerable cost. Fait accompli!!!!!! the
work will be done, we will suffer the consequences and the Trust will reap the
‘benefits’

I’ve ignored all the other practical points about the actual installation of
the project raised at the recent meeting)

Pete
(Ex NHS Chartered Engineer and PFI Contractor!)

On 11 Dec 2015, at 09:0, Mike Ratcliffe <<email obscured>> wrote:

I don't think I accused the Trust of misleading the people of Headington.

I accused them of preparing a communications strategy for a major capital
project that deliberately controlled the information going out to the community
in an incredibly unhelpful way.

When they had agreed the approach to be taken with Vital Energi - tenders etc
must have happened many months ago - it must have been very clear that this
would cause a major intervention into the streets of Headington. They did not
consult the community.

They must have considered routes (although the alternative route down Osler
Road, New High Street and through the NOC would have been no better) They did
not consult the community.

They commissioned a ground radar company to survey the ground, who left
markings all over the pavements, They did not consult the community - although
it did emerge that an energy link was being considered.

They discussed the route with the county transport people, and then submitted
requests for road closures. They (and the County!) did not consult the
community.

They started actually digging the trenches on their land. They did not consult
the community.

Then, finally, they were ready to *tell* people about it. They organised a
press launch - and insisted it was for accredited press members only. They did
relent, and Councillors and some community members were allowed in. They
refused to organise public meetings before this launch was held.

Now, when the road closures are agreed, the pipe company ready to go, they are
ready to talk to the community. Except, they've failed to second someone to do
the job, and so communications can't be responded to.

This isn't good.

Mike Ratcliffe
Highfield, Headington
About/contact Mike Ratcliffe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mikeratcliffe

None

Rest of post

This kind of fiasco is the kind of thing councillors dread. It makes us
all look fools and incompetents and it comes not long after the Access to
Headington consultation disaster, which saw several forum members taking
time out of their Summer holidays to find WiFi and submit their responses.
Ruth, Mark, Dee, Altaf, Glynis and Roz have my sympathy, having to pick up
the pieces of this latest nightmare. I'm wondering whether there is
anything either City or County Council can put in place to make sure that
these things don¹t keep happening.

Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
Marston Ward
Oxford City Council

On 12/12/2015 10:26, "Peter West" <<email obscured>> wrote:

>I think that the lack of communication was deliberate!
>
>When you read the (lack of¹) information available and provided, it seems
>to me that there are fundamental omissions from the statements made
>
>1. No options of energy strategies were outlined to demonstrate that the
>option being implemented was the most economical or energy efficient e.g
>two sets local gas fired boiler plant with or without local CHP plant.
>There are other questions of load matching¹ which I will not mention
>here but adds to the questions that should be raised.
>
>2. If the design is as suggested, i.e. totally reliant on a single CHP
>plant then there is a considerable risk of non availability of supply
>with the the plant being off for simple maintenance or even breakdown. I
>suspect that there is duplicate plant on both sites that can take up the
>load should the CHP plant fail. If not it is a very risky and poor
>strategy and design.
>
>3. I believe that the project is effectively a Private Finance Initiative
>(PFI) contract masquerading as a carbon reducing scheme that enables the
>Trust to avoid investing large capital sums to replace boiler plant on
>two sites and simply pay the capital, interest and maintenance costs
>annually over 25 years rather than an upfront capital cost plus normal¹
>maintenance costs. PFI schemes are not renowned for their cost savings!!!
>(It may therefore not be the real cost savings that are quoted!)
>
>4.No mention is made of high electrical cost of pumping / circulating
>water pumps that will be used to continually circulate water to the
>Churchill site.
>
>5. No mention is made of the carbon emissions that will be caused to by
>traffic congestion throughout Headington whilst the work is in progress
>nor of the vehicles that will be used to transport the materials to and
>from site , the excavation / infill of the duct or the manufacture and
>transport of the pipework and insulation.
>
>6. Vitali claim that they have extensive experience in this type of work
>in which case I would have expected them to advise the Trust that they
>would need the community on board¹ if the scheme was to be a success. In
>my view either the Trust has ignored them, or Vitali themselves have not
>been involved in community discussions on previous schemes. To me this
>has been borne out by the extremely late discussions with the Council and
>other authorities? (Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade??? plus the Bus
>Services), plus promises being made to members attending the recent
>meeting instigated by the Ruth / Roz. (Thanks!!!)
>
>Summarising it is my belief that the Trust knew that the boiler plant on
>the JR and Churchill sites needed replacing, did not have the cash to
>replace them, called in Vitali, either directly or via some form of
>tendering process based on a spec that they had prepared, may have asked
>Vitali to do an Engineering Option Appraisal, selected / agreed on a
>preferred option, signed the contract and got started. This whole process
>would take some considerable time, with ample opportunity to discuss it
>at the various local community meetings that regularly take place. I also
>suspect that the contract cannot be readily changed / withdrawn from
>without considerable cost. Fait accompli!!!!!! the work will be done, we
>will suffer the consequences and the Trust will reap the benefits¹
>
>I¹ve ignored all the other practical points about the actual installation
>of the project raised at the recent meeting)
>
>Pete
>(Ex NHS Chartered Engineer and PFI Contractor!)
>
>On 11 Dec 2015, at 09:0, Mike Ratcliffe <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>I don't think I accused the Trust of misleading the people of Headington.
>
>I accused them of preparing a communications strategy for a major capital
>project that deliberately controlled the information going out to the
>community in an incredibly unhelpful way.
>
>
>When they had agreed the approach to be taken with Vital Energi - tenders
>etc must have happened many months ago - it must have been very clear
>that this would cause a major intervention into the streets of
>Headington. They did not consult the community.
>
>They must have considered routes (although the alternative route down
>Osler Road, New High Street and through the NOC would have been no
>better) They did not consult the community.
>
>They commissioned a ground radar company to survey the ground, who left
>markings all over the pavements, They did not consult the community -
>although it did emerge that an energy link was being considered.
>
>They discussed the route with the county transport people, and then
>submitted requests for road closures. They (and the County!) did not
>consult the community.
>
>They started actually digging the trenches on their land. They did not
>consult the community.
>
>Then, finally, they were ready to *tell* people about it. They organised
>a press launch - and insisted it was for accredited press members only.
>They did relent, and Councillors and some community members were allowed
>in. They refused to organise public meetings before this launch was held.
>
>Now, when the road closures are agreed, the pipe company ready to go,
>they are ready to talk to the community. Except, they've failed to
>second someone to do the job, and so communications can't be responded
>to.
>
>This isn't good.
>
>
>Mike Ratcliffe
>Highfield, Headington
>About/contact Mike Ratcliffe:
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mikeratcliffe
>
>
>None
>
>
>------------------------
>Reply: Reply-All or visit
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5UE07VbQds83Yn7WYWQej7
>New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>*** Got Community? ***
> Help us get half way to our goal! E-Democracy still needs to raise
>$8,300
> to maintain the forums. So far members have contributed $6,700. Add
>your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
>E-Democracy your
> Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> http://po.st/amazonsmile
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>
>
>
>Peter West
>St Anne's Road, Headington, Oxford
>About/contact Peter West: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/peterwest
>
>
>None
>
>
>------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7hJww9zIdWTcgHU8eeoiNo
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>*** Got Community? ***
> Help us get half way to our goal! E-Democracy still needs to raise
>$8,300
> to maintain the forums. So far members have contributed $6,700. Add
>your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
>E-Democracy your
> Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> http://po.st/amazonsmile
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

Rest of post

>
>
> When you read the (lack of’) information available and provided, it seems
> to me that there are fundamental omissions from the statements made
>
> 1. No options of energy strategies were outlined to demonstrate that the
> option being implemented was the most economical or energy efficient e.g
> two sets local gas fired boiler plant with or without local CHP plant.
> There are other questions of ‘load matching’ which I will not mention here
> but adds to the questions that should be raised.
>

I think that's what most bothers me.

One would hope that there is better financial return to the scheme being
implemented (1x CHP plant and 2.2km of heat pipe) vs various alternatives
(say 2x smaller CHP plants at each site, no heat pipe).

The problem is, that it might only be cheaper if you don't consider the
external cost the community suffers - all the disruption today, and in the
future when, say, the expansion joints fail and the road needs digging up
again.

We just don't know. There may be really good reasons to do it that way
(like - the CHP plant being much more efficient at scale). But the stance
seems to be we don't need to know, so they're not going to bother. The PR
concentrates wholly on why the scheme is *good for them*. You could submit
an FOI request, but I'll be willing to bet they'll simply hide behind
nondisclosure of 'commercial contract terms'.

There's also much talk of future expansion. "This will ensure both
hospitals are flexible enough to meet the growing demands in heating and
hot water supplies as patient numbers increase and facilities expand.".
Perhaps this is all because of some other grand plan, not yet disclosed.

It basically *is* PFI - the finance is coming from Aviva. Whilst PFI has
been a disaster that gets worse every year in general - in this specific
case it's probable that both the terms might not be great, but it can
still save a huge amount of money.

Whether it's a 'classic' PFI scheme or not I couldn't say, but it's certainly
an outsourcing to a private company of the hospitals' energy systems. We must
hope that the contracts drawn up with the help of CEF are more sophisticated
and include much more protection for the Trust's own finances than the early
PFIs did.

Vital Energi have done schemes of comparable scope before, but never involving
laying pipes through such a length of residential streets - with all the
implications for residents and traffic. Nor does the County's Highways
department have any such experience within a generation.

I can't comment on whether the scheme is the best engineering solution to the
Trust's needs, but I'm prepared to believe that it is a good solution.

The Winter edition of the taxpayer-funded 'Your Oxford', published by the City
Council, provides a glowing account of recent developments here: 'Low carbon
week success'; 'Council delivers affordable homes'; 'Working hard to improve
services'; 'City scoops Employer of the Year gong'. 'Tenants welcome towers
makeover'.

The newspaper also provides us with some vital information about whether our
children are being radicalized: 'Signs to look for: buying new clothes or
saving money'.

What you will not find in this publication is any reference to the heat-pipe
project and the six months of chaos that it is going to cause.

That's strange, as 'Your Oxford' tells us that 'throughout the year, there are
loads of opportunities to have your say and help shape the Council's policies
and decisions'.

The city council is not responsible for Highways issues, that is the county
council, which has been made clear in numerous postings on this matter.

> On 13 Dec 2015, at 11:09, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> The Winter edition of the taxpayer-funded 'Your Oxford', published by the
City Council, provides a glowing account of recent developments here: 'Low
carbon week success'; 'Council delivers affordable homes'; 'Working hard to
improve services'; 'City scoops Employer of the Year gong'. 'Tenants welcome
towers makeover'.
>
> The newspaper also provides us with some vital information about whether our
children are being radicalized: 'Signs to look for: buying new clothes or
saving money'.
>
> What you will not find in this publication is any reference to the heat-pipe
project and the six months of chaos that it is going to cause.
>
> That's strange, as 'Your Oxford' tells us that 'throughout the year, there
are loads of opportunities to have your say and help shape the Council's
policies and decisions'.
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/pXv8SEStui8GSxcztTD4d
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Got Community? ***
> Help us get half way to our goal! E-Democracy still needs to raise $8,300
> to maintain the forums. So far members have contributed $6,700. Add your
donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
E-Democracy your

Rest of post

So what is your (and the Labour Party's) position on the heat pipe project?

Jeff Crisp

Tel: 07494028089

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Dee Sinclair <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

> The city council is not responsible for Highways issues, that is the
> county council, which has been made clear in numerous postings on this
> matter.
>
>
>
> > On 13 Dec 2015, at 11:09, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > The Winter edition of the taxpayer-funded 'Your Oxford', published by
> the City Council, provides a glowing account of recent developments here:
> 'Low carbon week success'; 'Council delivers affordable homes'; 'Working
> hard to improve services'; 'City scoops Employer of the Year gong'.
> 'Tenants welcome towers makeover'.
> >
> > The newspaper also provides us with some vital information about whether
> our children are being radicalized: 'Signs to look for: buying new clothes
> or saving money'.
> >
> > What you will not find in this publication is any reference to the
> heat-pipe project and the six months of chaos that it is going to cause.
> >
> > That's strange, as 'Your Oxford' tells us that 'throughout the year,
> there are loads of opportunities to have your say and help shape the
> Council's policies and decisions'.
> >
> > Jeff Crisp
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/pXv8SEStui8GSxcztTD4d
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** Got Community? ***
> > Help us get half way to our goal! E-Democracy still needs to raise
> $8,300
> > to maintain the forums. So far members have contributed $6,700. Add
> your donation today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
> E-Democracy your
> > Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> > http://po.st/amazonsmile
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>

Jeff: I suspect the council's official policy on the heat pipe project will be
that "The city council is not responsible for Highways issues, that is the
county council, which has been made clear in numerous postings on this matter."

I don't think we can blame either the City Council or the County Council for
this fiasco. The scheme did not require planning permission (which is
extraordinary, given the number of people who will be severely affected).
Utilities seem to be able to do what they like. (I personally would not define
this as a utility, as none of us are going to be able to make any use of the
pipe in our homes.)

I am uncertain whether the Hospitals Trust had to contact the County before
applying for the following traffic order, or whether it was a last-minute
surprise for them too:
http://www.tonyox3.com/documents/energy-project/Traffic_Order.pdf

The Hospitals Trust simply stuck this page up, invited questions, and walked
away without answering them:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/default.aspx

I can't see that any further information is going to be available before 4
January when digging starts in All Saints Road. So the query that the traffic
order (first link) says that All Saints Road will be closed to 17 January and
the webpage (second link) has it closed to 27 January will be ignored. (As 17
January is a Sunday and no work is taking place on the side streets at
weekends, I suspect that 27 January may be more likely....)

They haven't even corrected the year given on that web page from 2015 to 2016
(three times under Dig Team 1's schedule).

None of this inspires confidence.

I am interested in whether the County had a duty to consult before agreeing the
orders - which helpfully it did on the day that a public meeting was held which
raised a whole heap of questions - the kind of questions that might have made
them pause.

The trust has agreed to have a liaison group - but that's not meeting until 22
December. There will be precious little time to deal with issues if we end up
having to have another iteration after that.

There are people living in our streets whose circumstances are so particular,
that in effect an individual plan will be needed for them. It's all very well
to suggest people can get 60m (the longest you'd have to walk if your home was
in the middle of a 120m closed stretch) but if you can't park right at the end
that doesn't work - you might have to be streets away.

Even All Saints, the shortest road in the plan, presents challenges. The order
says one thing, the Trust's website another. The plans that come with the
order suggest the work will be done in two parts: one that closes one end of
Latimer (and therefore one end of Bickerton) and one that closes Stapleton. We
shouldn't have to be doing version control on official documents to guess what
the plan is.

One more point. Why on earth proceed with this project in the depths of winter,
when daylight hours are shortest and the weather is at its worst? It would make
much more sense to postpone until the spring/summer, which would also allow
time for proper consultations to take place, both with the community as a whole
and, as Mike Ratcliffe has pointed out, individuals with special needs.

The timing was explained at the meeting: they want to do the work on
residential streets while children are safely out of the way at school.

This means that the London Road will be done mostly over the Easter holidays,
when traffic is lighter, so that may be sensible (but doing Old Road at the
same time isn't).

Since my email this morning the three rogue 2015 dates on this page have been
corrected to 2016:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/default.aspx

It seems absolutely ludicrous that a scheme of this nature can be carried out
without planning permission, and without full, advance consultation with the
community and all its representatives - including the City and County Council.
The whole scheme, in its timing, its objectives and the way it is being carried
out, just seems preposterous. It is designed to cause the maximum inconvenience
to everybody for reasons I find unconvincing.
If it had come up for planning permission on any committee where I had a vote I
would certainly have voted No and told them to get lost.

Reading of Julia’s disgust at the lack of planning permission, mirrors Northway
residents’
thoughts on their situation.
Thedevastation that will serve as a Link Road into Northway, the whole scheme,
in it’s timing, objectives and the way it is being carried out is also
preposterous, and certainly designed to cause the maximum inconvenience to the
residents of Northway.....and we have certainly voted NO.
This all falls on stony ground though, The Council is not into changing it’s
mind one iota, no matter what ideas are suggested.

Don’t be taken in by councillors who call our complaints “rumours, untruths,
wild accusations etc.,
The person who wrote these comments. is guilty of the very acts of which he
accuses Northway residents in such a“mightier than thou” manner, when
saying...........”the misuse of the truth makes rational discussion difficult”
Pot calling the kettle black again!!!

One more point. Does the Council have any say on what is printed in the Oxford
Mail?
I only ask because when Northway residents had their protest meeting on what
used to be our Green.
the Oxford Mail reporter came along quite late, asked a few questions then
eventually took his mobile out of his pocket and took one photo of the 30+
residents!!!!!
On page 5, up in the top Rt. hand corner, appeared the tiniest picture possible
of just a few residents.
The posters they were holding, approx. 2.5ft x 1.5 ft. were smaller than a
postage stamp and the
messages were indistinguishable.
On the previous page, there was almost a whole page with a very large picture
along with an account of the poor people of Spring Lane having enormous hedges
destroyed, revealing huge warehouses in full view of their windows.

They had just cause to be angry, but replace the hedges and all will be back to
normal.
We have long term consequences hanging over us with our monstrosity.
WHY WOULD WE GET SUCH MEAGRE COVERAGE, it was barely worth publishing.

Barbara Stone.

Why oh why has the Northway issue invaded this topic? Does no one listen to
Stephanie. Does their headache always have to be worse than everyone else's!

The Hospitals Trust has just sent out invitations to a "Headington Liaison
Group Stakeholder Meeting" to be held on Tuesday, which implies they are at
last getting the message that people want more information about the pipes
before the holiday. This should give councillors and the invited
representatives of residents' groups a chance to ask questions on your behalf.

Presumably the "New Roads and Street Works Act 1991" is relevant for the pipes:
http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/network/local/streetworks/cop/cop3rdedition.pdf
More specifically, however, the law does not seem to have caught up: I can find
"Compensation from Utilities" material on the web, with references to
legislation drawn up when gas, water, and electricity were privatized in the
1980s, but nothing about the laying of heat pipes. (It may be there, but I
can't find it.)

Northway: I am sure people in central Headington will sympathize even more
with you when they see the big trench approaching their houses, and we realize
that you are more worried, as you will have the road permanently, but please
keep the discussion about it on the Northway thread.

For goodness sake, Barbara, stick to the point. Rambling on about everything
that bugs you in this thread is not conducive to a sensible debate on the
pipe-laying disruption.

In answer to Julia's point, the energy pipe works are deemed to be utilities
works, and no planning application is required in these cases. Consultation is
not required for utilities works but the County Council does have to agree with
the contractor the timing of temporary traffic orders for roads that may be
closed. This is a highly unusual case, as these utilities works are so major
and so prolonged. Because of that, it is entirely reasonable to expect those
managing the project to have started talking to and with residents very much
earlier in the process.

But we are where we are, and the work is going to happen. So the main thing is
get the contractors and the Trust talking to the residents' reps, the
councillors and other stakeholders to mitigate harm to the amenity of residents
as much as we can. Any sort of dialogue about practicalities will be a step
forward and we have to make sure there will be continuing communication
throughout the process - that's why Roz and I have pushed for a meeting before
Christmas

I have a list of questions that people have sent to the Trust but have not yet
had answers. That's not good enough, as work is due to start on 4 January and
people need notice to make other arrangements.

Just out of curiosity Ruth, Mary C, Stephanie in particular....
who has said planning permission is not required?has someone said it is not
"development"or has it been described as "permitted development"if it is
described as permitted development why?
I am curious from an academic point of view and happy to take the call off
forum.

Andrew

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:12:20 +1300
>
> In answer to Julia's point, the energy pipe works are deemed to be utilities
works, and no planning application is required in these cases. Consultation is
not required for utilities works but the County Council does have to agree with
the contractor the timing of temporary traffic orders for roads that may be
closed. This is a highly unusual case, as these utilities works are so major
and so prolonged. Because of that, it is entirely reasonable to expect those
managing the project to have started talking to and with residents very much
earlier in the process.
>
> But we are where we are, and the work is going to happen. So the main thing
is get the contractors and the Trust talking to the residents' reps, the
councillors and other stakeholders to mitigate harm to the amenity of residents
as much as we can. Any sort of dialogue about practicalities will be a step
forward and we have to make sure there will be continuing communication
throughout the process - that's why Roz and I have pushed for a meeting before
Christmas
>
> I have a list of questions that people have sent to the Trust but have not
yet had answers. That's not good enough, as work is due to start on 4 January
and people need notice to make other arrangements.
>
> Ruth Wilkinson
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Ruth Wilkinson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5rAqmFIEw0oTcdyWUwltTF
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Love your forum? ***
> E-Democracy still needs to raise $8,000 to maintain the forums.
> 182 members have donated $6,900+ so far! Add your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
E-Democracy your

Rest of post

For your information John, my entry was in response to Julia's comments, on
the Disruption thread., when I realised that the way she explained her
feelings, well described our feelings on a similar subject.

Let's face it, the disruption thread has well surpassed the entries on the Link
Road.

Sent from my iPad

> On 17 Dec 2015, at 16:50, John L Nealon <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> For goodness sake, Barbara, stick to the point. Rambling on about everything
that bugs you in this thread is not conducive to a sensible debate on the
pipe-laying disruption.
>
> John L Nealon
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact John L Nealon:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/11o6ZqmHRbqMmkT1WfGMb7
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7mPJ2IL3v2lW5QQA3EYfSL
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Love your forum? ***
> E-Democracy still needs to raise $8,000 to maintain the forums.
> 182 members have donated $6,900+ so far! Add your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
E-Democracy your

Rest of post

As the originator of the 'Disruption' thread, can I just point out that my
concerns were not only related to the heat-pipe project, but were also
connected to the proposed student accommodation on London and Latimer roads.
While the latter project has been temporarily stalled, thanks to a planning and
consultation process that has been entirely absent in relation to the former, I
have no doubt that the self-proclaimed 'entrepreneurial' property development
company behind the proposed student accommodation will fight until they get a
handsome return on their investment. Which will be at the expense of the
community as a whole.

Going back to the heat-pipe project, can the organizations and companies
associated with it provide us with copies of any independent assessments they
have commissioned in relation to its impact on issues such as emergency service
access, parking, traffic circulation and the rights of people with
disabilities? And if not, why not? It seems as if they have acted on the basis
of their minimum legal obligations rather than their responsibilities to the
community.

Andrew has asked why planning permission is not required for this heat pipe.
As I understand it, it is because it is regarded as a utility. Utilities never
need permission and can dig up any road to provide a new service (although
whether something that none of us will be able to use directly should be
regarded as a utility is a different question...). Some of us will remember
Comtel (which eventually became NTL and now VirginMedia) digging up every
pavement in Headington, and disabled people having difficulty getting out of
their houses: that was a surprise too.

Utilities presumably have to keep to the following "Code of Practice for the
Co-ordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters":
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43578/street-works-code-of-practice.pdf

Part III of the "New Roads and Street Works Act 1991" also looks relevant:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/22/contents

Here is Bracknell Forest Council launching a consultation which could lead to
utility companies *in their area* having to apply for permission and pay a
charge to dig up roads:
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/utility-companies-ask-permission-dig-6198022
Maybe Oxford, which suffers so much from congestion, should consider something
similar.

Barbara is right: about the number of messages: this is the 63rd message by 25
people on this thread. This is because everyone in Headington will be affected
by this disruption when the London Road and Old Road are reduced to one lane.
Please keep long messages about the Barton Link Road (where planning permission
was required and granted, despite protests and an attempt at a Town Green
registration) on the most recent Northway thread.

Maybe I should take this off Forum then. I was referring to the work on the
roads as utilities works. There has been at least one associated planning
application at the JR

I repeated the advice on the Forum that I had been given by the County
Networks Team. If it's not correct, I'd better check it again with the
County Council

Roz, Barry - can you advise?

Ruth

Rest of post

--
Ruth Wilkinson
Lib Dem Councillor for Headington
07789 368300
On 17 December 2015 at 21:36, Andrew Lewis <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Just out of curiosity Ruth, Mary C, Stephanie in particular....
>
> - who has said planning permission is not required?
> - has someone said it is not "development"
> - or has it been described as "permitted development"
> - if it is described as permitted development why?
>
>
>
> I am curious from an academic point of view and happy to take the call off
> forum.
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> > From: <email obscured>
> > Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> > To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:12:20 +1300
> >
> > In answer to Julia's point, the energy pipe works are deemed to be
> utilities works, and no planning application is required in these cases.
> Consultation is not required for utilities works but the County Council
> does have to agree with the contractor the timing of temporary traffic
> orders for roads that may be closed. This is a highly unusual case, as
> these utilities works are so major and so prolonged. Because of that, it is
> entirely reasonable to expect those managing the project to have started
> talking to and with residents very much earlier in the process.
> >
> > But we are where we are, and the work is going to happen. So the main
> thing is get the contractors and the Trust talking to the residents' reps,
> the councillors and other stakeholders to mitigate harm to the amenity of
> residents as much as we can. Any sort of dialogue about practicalities will
> be a step forward and we have to make sure there will be continuing
> communication throughout the process - that's why Roz and I have pushed for
> a meeting before Christmas
> >
> > I have a list of questions that people have sent to the Trust but have
> not yet had answers. That's not good enough, as work is due to start on 4
> January and people need notice to make other arrangements.
> >
> > Ruth Wilkinson
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Ruth Wilkinson:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5rAqmFIEw0oTcdyWUwltTF
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** Love your forum? ***
> > E-Democracy still needs to raise $8,000 to maintain the forums.
> > 182 members have donated $6,900+ so far! Add your donation today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > Holiday Invitation - Shop local ...but if you do shop Amazon, make
> E-Democracy your
> > Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> > http://po.st/amazonsmile
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>

Good morning,

Many thanks to Tony for his excellent website. We are relatively new to
Headington, having moved here a year ago and were horrified to find out only a
few weeks ago we will be in the midst of this chaos for three months! We only
found out through a friend and the Lib Dem leaflet inviting us to the
meeting,which unfortunately we were unable to attend.

My understanding is that a meeting is taking place today between the County
Council and contractors to try to sort out parking issues for local residents.
We are concerned about the general disruption to Headington but as Sandfield
Road residents in the affected area between the JR and London Road - we've been
told we'll have no access on/off our drive 7 days a week for a month. The
suggestion that we park at Headington Hill campus or a local pub overnight
(made by OCC parking manager) demonstrates a complete lack of awareness and
sensitivity to the needs of local residents - we have a two year old and I am
37 weeks pregnant - so, like many others for various reasons, my mobility is
very limited and slow!

I am sure others are more on the ball than me, but last night I wrote to the
council (AGAIN) in advance of this meeting today - is it worth others doing the
same (no doubt again?) - the email addresses of the leader of the council are:
<email obscured>; chairman: <email obscured>,
director of area in charge of this project: <email obscured>;
deputy director: <email obscured>

Ruth Wilkinson has been doing a brilliant job keeping us all informed - thank
you Ruth and good luck today.

All the best,
Katie

Welcome to the forum and to Headington, Katie!

I will repeat the email addresses you gave in the last message substituting
"(at)" for the normal symbol:

Leader of the county council: ian.hudspeth(at)oxfordshire.gov.uk
Chairman: chairman(at)oxfordshire.gov.uk,
Director of area in charge of this project: sue.scane(at)oxfordshire.gov.uk
Deputy director: mark.kemp(at)oxfordshire.gov.uk

This is for the sake of people who only view the forum via the website, as
email addresses are masked there for the security of forum members (people
replying by email sometimes leave email addresses dangling).

>
> Andrew has asked why planning permission is not required for this heat
> pipe. As I understand it, it is because it is regarded as a utility.
> Utilities never need permission and can dig up any road to provide a new
> service (although whether something that none of us will be able to use
> directly should be regarded as a utility is a different question...). Some
> of us will remember Comtel (which eventually became NTL and now
> VirginMedia) digging up every pavement in Headington, and disabled people
> having difficulty getting out of their houses: that was a surprise too.
>

To me, the planning permission is a side issue, because the answer should
probably be 'yes'. CHP seems like it is a good solution
.

The problem is disruption and extra cost. The costs are widespread - missed
appointments, increased emissions and journey times, delayed buses. When
NYNEX dug up my street for cable tv all those years ago, it was the same as
you describe - but - they were there and gone within the day. But there's
an important point - the costs they impose are borne by everyone, whether
they are a customer or not.

The heat pipe project has some extraordinarily long periods of road
closure. I suspect this is because it'll follow the usual "one man and his
digger" approach - do it in the cheapest way possible (one shift, monday to
friday only). As one FT article put it - "It often seems as if utilities
dig holes just to reserve them for later – the public works equivalent of
throwing a towel over a sunlounger."

Why? Because there is no incentive whatsoever for the project to care about
your inconvenience - only their installation cost. So the only mechanism to
make them care about your inconvenience is to attach a cost to it.

This seems not without precedent. Kent may be charging companies "up to"
£2,000 per day [1] to dig up the roads. Camden successfully did the same in
2002.

You can argue about what the charge should be, but I would imagine that if
there was an additional charge of £300k to be digging up the roads for six
months then either the economics of a heat pipe vs 2 CHP generators might
evaporate, or - magically - it suddenly doesn't take 6 months to lay a few
bits of pipe.

So - which of the many and overlapping tiers of government would be able
to implement such a scheme for us in Oxford ?

Rest of post

Well spotted Nigel. There must be a suitable way to incentivise a reduction in
disruption, and perhaps this is it.

As long as it doesn't encourage councils to approve permissions in order to
attract the additional revenues. Ideally any money raised in this way would be
ring fenced to be spent in the immediate communities affected.

Clearly too late for this project, but let's hope the Hospitals Trust has
realised quite how upset local residents are at their very inadequate handling
of this so far, and pull out all the stops to make it as painless as possible.

Why is it 'too late for this project'? Has anyone asked them what compensation
they plan to pay? I suggest everyone affected calculates a reasonable
anticipated cost (either actual in terms of fuel, parking costs and so on, or
the additional time (with an associated cost ph)) and asks the hospital to
confirm they will pay. If you don't ask, you won't get. And there's nothing
stopping anyone taking them to the small claims court. Surely someone must have
asked the question at the open meeting?
Nigel GibsonHeadington

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:31:41 +1300
>
> Well spotted Nigel. There must be a suitable way to incentivise a reduction
in disruption, and perhaps this is it.
>
> As long as it doesn't encourage councils to approve permissions in order to
attract the additional revenues. Ideally any money raised in this way would be
ring fenced to be spent in the immediate communities affected.
>
> Clearly too late for this project, but let's hope the Hospitals Trust has
realised quite how upset local residents are at their very inadequate handling
of this so far, and pull out all the stops to make it as painless as possible.
>
> Ian Davis
> Oxford
> About/contact Ian Davis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/irs
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7a85DSBIDnRvv6xDnc0XCb
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
chipped into
> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
building in action. Thank you!
> Double your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your Amazon
Smile nonprofit!

Rest of post

Under planning legislation "Utilities" have what are called permitted
development rights if they are a statutory undertaker or have some specified
powers. The Health Authority can undertake some work to hospitals under such
rules but i do not believe it has the right to lay pipes all over Headington.
And I am unclear if the contractor has such authority.

Since drafting this I notice cabling and communications may be going in the
trences with the pipes and therefore that could be what grants the permitted
development rights to do the work.

I would love to know.

andrew

> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:05:12 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> From: <email obscured>
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> >
> > Andrew has asked why planning permission is not required for this heat
> > pipe. As I understand it, it is because it is regarded as a utility.
> > Utilities never need permission and can dig up any road to provide a new
> > service (although whether something that none of us will be able to use
> > directly should be regarded as a utility is a different question...). Some
> > of us will remember Comtel (which eventually became NTL and now
> > VirginMedia) digging up every pavement in Headington, and disabled people
> > having difficulty getting out of their houses: that was a surprise too.
> >
>
> To me, the planning permission is a side issue, because the answer should
> probably be 'yes'. CHP seems like it is a good solution
> .
>
> The problem is disruption and extra cost. The costs are widespread - missed
> appointments, increased emissions and journey times, delayed buses. When
> NYNEX dug up my street for cable tv all those years ago, it was the same as
> you describe - but - they were there and gone within the day. But there's
> an important point - the costs they impose are borne by everyone, whether
> they are a customer or not.
>
>
> The heat pipe project has some extraordinarily long periods of road
> closure. I suspect this is because it'll follow the usual "one man and his
> digger" approach - do it in the cheapest way possible (one shift, monday to
> friday only). As one FT article put it - "It often seems as if utilities
> dig holes just to reserve them for later – the public works equivalent of
> throwing a towel over a sunlounger."
>
> Why? Because there is no incentive whatsoever for the project to care about
> your inconvenience - only their installation cost. So the only mechanism to
> make them care about your inconvenience is to attach a cost to it.
>
> This seems not without precedent. Kent may be charging companies "up to"
> £2,000 per day [1] to dig up the roads. Camden successfully did the same in
> 2002.
>
> You can argue about what the charge should be, but I would imagine that if
> there was an additional charge of £300k to be digging up the roads for six
> months then either the economics of a heat pipe vs 2 CHP generators might
> evaporate, or - magically - it suddenly doesn't take 6 months to lay a few
> bits of pipe.
>
>
> So - which of the many and overlapping tiers of government would be able
> to implement such a scheme for us in Oxford ?
>
>
>
>
> [1]
>
http://www.courier.co.uk/Companies-forced-pay-2-000-day-dig-Kent-roads-new/story-17959601-detail/story.html
>
>
> nom Magnay
> Oxford
> About/contact nom Magnay: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nigelmagnay
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5Qhc4cUZeaAyXXx6OBxybr
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
chipped into
> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
building in action. Thank you!
> Double your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your Amazon
Smile nonprofit!

Rest of post

At the open meeting the question was certainly put about both loss of income
and extra costs (say if extra buses had to be pit on the maintain overall
standards) - but I know that questions about loss of 'enjoyment' have been put
to the Trust.

Let's hope that the Trust and their contractors can pull something out of the
bag at the liaison meeting. For example, I'm still waiting for a simple
clarification about the duration and organisation of the work in All Saints
Road which is supposed to start two weeks today.

Mike

Rest of post

I would think that reducing London Road to 1 lane for 4 weeks would have
massive impact on everyone in St Clements and Central Oxford as well. The
county council should know from recent experience what impact such works have
on the Oxford economy, surely that would be considered as part of whether this
project should proceed?

Are there events at the University or for businesses in town that would
coincide with the proposed timing of this?

Not sure how they qualifies as a "utility" either. What exactly is it that
makes their work a utility, unless they are paying one of the utility companies
to undertake the work?

Roger

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Dec 2015, at 14:24, Andrew Lewis <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Under planning legislation "Utilities" have what are called permitted
development rights if they are a statutory undertaker or have some specified
powers. The Health Authority can undertake some work to hospitals under such
rules but i do not believe it has the right to lay pipes all over Headington.
And I am unclear if the contractor has such authority.
>
> Since drafting this I notice cabling and communications may be going in the
trences with the pipes and therefore that could be what grants the permitted
development rights to do the work.
>
> I would love to know.
>
>
>
>
> andrew
>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:05:12 +0000
>> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
>> From: <email obscured>
>> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew has asked why planning permission is not required for this heat
>>> pipe. As I understand it, it is because it is regarded as a utility.
>>> Utilities never need permission and can dig up any road to provide a new
>>> service (although whether something that none of us will be able to use
>>> directly should be regarded as a utility is a different question...). Some
>>> of us will remember Comtel (which eventually became NTL and now
>>> VirginMedia) digging up every pavement in Headington, and disabled people
>>> having difficulty getting out of their houses: that was a surprise too.
>>
>> To me, the planning permission is a side issue, because the answer should
>> probably be 'yes'. CHP seems like it is a good solution
>> .
>>
>> The problem is disruption and extra cost. The costs are widespread - missed
>> appointments, increased emissions and journey times, delayed buses. When
>> NYNEX dug up my street for cable tv all those years ago, it was the same as
>> you describe - but - they were there and gone within the day. But there's
>> an important point - the costs they impose are borne by everyone, whether
>> they are a customer or not.
>>
>>
>> The heat pipe project has some extraordinarily long periods of road
>> closure. I suspect this is because it'll follow the usual "one man and his
>> digger" approach - do it in the cheapest way possible (one shift, monday to
>> friday only). As one FT article put it - "It often seems as if utilities
>> dig holes just to reserve them for later – the public works equivalent of
>> throwing a towel over a sunlounger."
>>
>> Why? Because there is no incentive whatsoever for the project to care about
>> your inconvenience - only their installation cost. So the only mechanism to
>> make them care about your inconvenience is to attach a cost to it.
>>
>> This seems not without precedent. Kent may be charging companies "up to"
>> £2,000 per day [1] to dig up the roads. Camden successfully did the same in
>> 2002.
>>
>> You can argue about what the charge should be, but I would imagine that if
>> there was an additional charge of £300k to be digging up the roads for six
>> months then either the economics of a heat pipe vs 2 CHP generators might
>> evaporate, or - magically - it suddenly doesn't take 6 months to lay a few
>> bits of pipe.
>>
>>
>> So - which of the many and overlapping tiers of government would be able
>> to implement such a scheme for us in Oxford ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>
http://www.courier.co.uk/Companies-forced-pay-2-000-day-dig-Kent-roads-new/story-17959601-detail/story.html
>>
>>
>> nom Magnay
>> Oxford
>> About/contact nom Magnay: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nigelmagnay
>>
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5Qhc4cUZeaAyXXx6OBxybr
>> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>>
>>
>> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
>> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
chipped into
>> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
building in action. Thank you!
>> Double your donation today!
>> http://e-democracy.org/donate
>> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your Amazon
Smile nonprofit!
>> http://po.st/amazonsmile
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Andrew Lewis
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Andrew Lewis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewlewis
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2BmTScOenwfLsQmjB6yjmT
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
chipped into
> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
building in action. Thank you!
> Double your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your Amazon
Smile nonprofit!

Rest of post

I would not be at all surprised if there are rush hour traffic jams all the
way from the ring road to Brookes during the period when London Road is
reduced to one lane. And those of who use public transport will not be
exempt from the inconvenience.

From what I have heard, the people responsible for managing this project
have made no projections or plans whatsoever with respect to its impact on
traffic flow, parking (where exactly are all those cars going to be put?)
or access for residents with limited mobility.

Jeff Crisp

Tel: 07494028089

Rest of post

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Roger <<email obscured>> wrote:

> I would think that reducing London Road to 1 lane for 4 weeks would have
> massive impact on everyone in St Clements and Central Oxford as well. The
> county council should know from recent experience what impact such works
> have on the Oxford economy, surely that would be considered as part of
> whether this project should proceed?
>
> Are there events at the University or for businesses in town that would
> coincide with the proposed timing of this?
>
> Not sure how they qualifies as a "utility" either. What exactly is it that
> makes their work a utility, unless they are paying one of the utility
> companies to undertake the work?
>
> Roger
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 21 Dec 2015, at 14:24, Andrew Lewis <<email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > Under planning legislation "Utilities" have what are called permitted
> development rights if they are a statutory undertaker or have some
> specified powers. The Health Authority can undertake some work to hospitals
> under such rules but i do not believe it has the right to lay pipes all
> over Headington. And I am unclear if the contractor has such authority.
> >
> > Since drafting this I notice cabling and communications may be going in
> the trences with the pipes and therefore that could be what grants the
> permitted development rights to do the work.
> >
> > I would love to know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > andrew
> >
> >> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:05:12 +0000
> >> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> >> From: <email obscured>
> >> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Andrew has asked why planning permission is not required for this heat
> >>> pipe. As I understand it, it is because it is regarded as a utility.
> >>> Utilities never need permission and can dig up any road to provide a
> new
> >>> service (although whether something that none of us will be able to use
> >>> directly should be regarded as a utility is a different question...).
> Some
> >>> of us will remember Comtel (which eventually became NTL and now
> >>> VirginMedia) digging up every pavement in Headington, and disabled
> people
> >>> having difficulty getting out of their houses: that was a surprise too.
> >>
> >> To me, the planning permission is a side issue, because the answer
> should
> >> probably be 'yes'. CHP seems like it is a good solution
> >> .
> >>
> >> The problem is disruption and extra cost. The costs are widespread -
> missed
> >> appointments, increased emissions and journey times, delayed buses. When
> >> NYNEX dug up my street for cable tv all those years ago, it was the
> same as
> >> you describe - but - they were there and gone within the day. But
> there's
> >> an important point - the costs they impose are borne by everyone,
> whether
> >> they are a customer or not.
> >>
> >>
> >> The heat pipe project has some extraordinarily long periods of road
> >> closure. I suspect this is because it'll follow the usual "one man and
> his
> >> digger" approach - do it in the cheapest way possible (one shift,
> monday to
> >> friday only). As one FT article put it - "It often seems as if
> utilities
> >> dig holes just to reserve them for later – the public works equivalent
> of
> >> throwing a towel over a sunlounger."
> >>
> >> Why? Because there is no incentive whatsoever for the project to care
> about
> >> your inconvenience - only their installation cost. So the only
> mechanism to
> >> make them care about your inconvenience is to attach a cost to it.
> >>
> >> This seems not without precedent. Kent may be charging companies "up to"
> >> £2,000 per day [1] to dig up the roads. Camden successfully did the
> same in
> >> 2002.
> >>
> >> You can argue about what the charge should be, but I would imagine that
> if
> >> there was an additional charge of £300k to be digging up the roads for
> six
> >> months then either the economics of a heat pipe vs 2 CHP generators
> might
> >> evaporate, or - magically - it suddenly doesn't take 6 months to lay a
> few
> >> bits of pipe.
> >>
> >>
> >> So - which of the many and overlapping tiers of government would be
> able
> >> to implement such a scheme for us in Oxford ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
>
http://www.courier.co.uk/Companies-forced-pay-2-000-day-dig-Kent-roads-new/story-17959601-detail/story.html
> >>
> >>
> >> nom Magnay
> >> Oxford
> >> About/contact nom Magnay: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nigelmagnay
> >>
> >>
> >> None
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------
> >> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5Qhc4cUZeaAyXXx6OBxybr
> >> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> >> Digest: Subject: digest on
> >> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> >> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >>
> >>
> >> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> >> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members
> have chipped into
> >> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
> building in action. Thank you!
> >> Double your donation today!
> >> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> >> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your
> Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> >> http://po.st/amazonsmile
> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
> > Andrew Lewis
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Andrew Lewis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewlewis
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2BmTScOenwfLsQmjB6yjmT
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> > Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members
> have chipped into
> > an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
> building in action. Thank you!
> > Double your donation today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your
> Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> > http://po.st/amazonsmile
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>
>
> Roger Lai
> [u'Headington', u''], [u'Oxford', u'']
> About/contact Roger Lai: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogerlai
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3MyjkldDldufmdKmF88UUT
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
> chipped into
> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
> building in action. Thank you!
> Double your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your Amazon
> Smile nonprofit!
> http://po.st/amazonsmile
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

Seconding the current mood of this topic/thread - the disruption is going to be
felt and suffered on a much wider basis than the likely coverage of the
information finally leaking out of the Hospitals Trust / constructors etc......
We in the immediate area of Headington and Marston might be gradually becoming
well informed, but what about the surrounding areas?

Potential gridlock throughout all of East Oxford is on the horizon - the two
Hospitals will eventually be all toasty warm, but we are going to do a lot of
suffering to make it possible - what's the betting the forbearance and
perseverance of the local inhabitants doesn't even get a mention at the
completion of the works and the no doubt triumphant and congratulatory
announcement of a job well done is made?

Perhaps a small memorial statue dedicated to the frustrated and frazzled
inhabitants might be erected at the side of the trench?

"To the long suffering locals who gave their all for the greater
good..........."

We have been digging around at home and don't think that Vital Energi count as
a "Utility". The letters delivered by hand a couple of days ago referred to a
s50 permission, but didn't bother to specify which Act. The Streetworks Act
(which I assume is what they are invoking) seems to relate to private
operators. I have just left a message with Highways asking for chapter and
verse on the road closure order and the decision to grant it (was there any
discretion, did they check Vital Energi's credentials and other requisite
permissions). I think there is a rebuttable presumption that frontagers own
the subsoil of the land up to the mid point of the road (the "usque ad medium
filium" rule) and only the surface vests in the highway authority. If that is
correct, then unless there is some special vesting power in play that I haven't
found yet, then they might need permission from all of us to lay the pipe.
Probably there is something somewhere to knock that down, but I can't find it
yet.

You are right that Vital Energi is not a utility, as we were assuming. This
Section 50 licence was mentioned at the meeting last night: companies and
individuals other than utilities etc who want to install apparatus in the road
have to apply for it.

It's a Section 50 Licence under the New Roads & Street Works Act (NRSWA) 1991,
enabling organizes to install works in the Highways Agency's Strategic Roads
Network:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/installing-apparatus-in-a-highway-section-50-licence-nrswa-1991

That page says::
"Utilities and other bodies have statutory powers to install apparatus in a
public highway except when the highway is a special road under the Highways Act
1980 (eg, a motorway).
Any other company or individual who wants to install and maintain apparatus
will need to apply for a Licence under Section 50 of the New Roads and Street
Works Act 1991 (NRSWA)."

It sounds like Ann-Marie knows her law, probably better than most of us
councillors. If we need any extra legal minds on this, I know a few in
Marston who might be able to help too. I¹m sure they¹d be happy to help if
anybody wants me to approach them.

Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
Marston Ward
Oxford City Council

On 23/12/2015 10:13, "Stephanie Jenkins" <<email obscured>>
wrote:

>You are right that Vital Energi is not a utility, as we were assuming.
>This Section 50 licence was mentioned at the meeting last night:
>companies and individuals other than utilities etc who want to install
>apparatus in the road have to apply for it.
>
>It's a Section 50 Licence under the New Roads & Street Works Act (NRSWA)
>1991, enabling organizes to install works in the Highways Agency's
>Strategic Roads Network:
>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/installing-apparatus-in-a-highw
>ay-section-50-licence-nrswa-1991
>
>That page says::
>"Utilities and other bodies have statutory powers to install apparatus in
>a public highway except when the highway is a special road under the
>Highways Act 1980 (eg, a motorway).
>Any other company or individual who wants to install and maintain
>apparatus will need to apply for a Licence under Section 50 of the New
>Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA)."
>
>
>Stephanie Jenkins
>Headington ward, Oxford
>About/contact Stephanie Jenkins:
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins
>
>
>None
>
>
>------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3Kf7u7Zvl7mHRp6beR2FMJ
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>*** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members
>have chipped into
> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
>building in action. Thank you!
> Double your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your
>Amazon Smile nonprofit!
> http://po.st/amazonsmile
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

Rest of post

The Streetworks Act says that the Highway Authority "may" grant permission (and
it has in fact done so). It seems to say at S50(2) that the Licence does away
with the need to obtain any other consent from "any other relevant authority
in its capacity as such", or
from "any person in his capacity as the owner of apparatus affected by the
works", which I think is talking about anyone else with infrastructure already
in situ in the road. Subsection (3) says expressly that the licence doesn't
obviate the need to get any other requisite permissions and do I think the
question to the County Council and Vital is: what other permissions were
needed and were they obtained, or is there a statutory power somewhere else
that gives them rights to do this. I don't think they own the land where the
pipe will be laid (and nor does the Highway Authority own it below two spades'
depth), so someone ought to be able to say how / whether they have a right to
do it. I don't think the NRSWA gets them all the way there, but I am only
saying it tentatively. The County Council of course ought to be able to tell
us the answer, or at least: did it do any due diligence about the
issue........

The main question taken away from the Pipework Liaison meeting last night at
OUH Trust I was that Vitalenergi held meetings with key officers at County
Council a year ago and yet local County Councillors such as Liz Brighouse, Mark
Lygo and Roz Smith had not heard anything about the scheme until very recently.
Questions must be raised about competence and communications within and beyond
County Hall and what that administration considers worth telling people about
particularly a scheme as disruptive as this. To their credit Vitalenergi have
thought through many of the likely issues and problems that could and will
arise but many people will be much put out by the work.

Roy Darke

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 Dec 2015, at 10:20, Mary Clarkson <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> It sounds like Ann-Marie knows her law, probably better than most of us
> councillors. If we need any extra legal minds on this, I know a few in
> Marston who might be able to help too. I¹m sure they¹d be happy to help if
> anybody wants me to approach them.
>
> Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
> Marston Ward
> Oxford City Council
>
> On 23/12/2015 10:13, "Stephanie Jenkins" <<email obscured>>
> wrote:
>
>> You are right that Vital Energi is not a utility, as we were assuming.
>> This Section 50 licence was mentioned at the meeting last night:
>> companies and individuals other than utilities etc who want to install
>> apparatus in the road have to apply for it.
>>
>> It's a Section 50 Licence under the New Roads & Street Works Act (NRSWA)
>> 1991, enabling organizes to install works in the Highways Agency's
>> Strategic Roads Network:
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/installing-apparatus-in-a-highw
>> ay-section-50-licence-nrswa-1991
>>
>> That page says::
>> "Utilities and other bodies have statutory powers to install apparatus in
>> a public highway except when the highway is a special road under the
>> Highways Act 1980 (eg, a motorway).
>> Any other company or individual who wants to install and maintain
>> apparatus will need to apply for a Licence under Section 50 of the New
>> Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA)."
>>
>>
>> Stephanie Jenkins
>> Headington ward, Oxford
>> About/contact Stephanie Jenkins:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins
>>
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3Kf7u7Zvl7mHRp6beR2FMJ
>> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>>
>>
>> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
>> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members
>> have chipped into
>> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
>> building in action. Thank you!
>> Double your donation today!
>> http://e-democracy.org/donate
>> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your
>> Amazon Smile nonprofit!
>> http://po.st/amazonsmile
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>
>
> Mary Clarkson
> Old Headington, Oxford City Council
> About/contact Mary Clarkson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/maryclarkson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/bOIdF8fNuB2kMLcM1yRLY
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
chipped into
> an exciting new $1700 matching fund. This is grassroots community
building in action. Thank you!
> Double your donation today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> Holiday Invitation - If you shop Amazon, make E-Democracy your Amazon
Smile nonprofit!

Rest of post

Hi everyone,
Following a pathetic email exchange over the last few days with the County
Council regarding the parking and access issues, I have just contacted BBC
South Today. If you have a specific access/mobility issue, you may be
interested in contacting them too, as they are now planning to run another
story on the impact on residents. I'm guessing people with mobility
issues/disability/elderly affected would be of most interest, particularly with
regard to carers/etc getting through - and also local businesses affected by
the disruption. You need to call 02380 226201 and speak to the Oxford planning
desk.
Merry Christmas and fingers crossed!
Katie

There was a gasp at the meeting last night when it was revealed that
Oxfordshire County Council had known about these pipes for over a year!

Tony OX3 has put his report on the meeting here:
http://www.tonyox3.com/liaison-meeting-22-december-2015/

I went to look at the pipes this morning, and was reassured to see that they
are laying the pipes under large tree roots at the JR (see attached
photograph).

The posted image heat_pipe_tree_roots.jpg

heat_pipe_tree_roots.jpg 454.11kb

In case you haven't seen it, the Hospital Energy Project has posted a list of
Frequently Asked Questions here:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/documents/the-hospital-energy-project-QandA.pdf

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, they have declined to answer three of the
most frequently asked questions about the project.

First, why was no attempt made to consult with the community during the
planning process?

Second, why is it that the project managers are still unable to answer basic
questions about issues such as parking and disabled access, even though the
digging has already begun?

Third, will the digging affect the structural integrity of houses on the route
of the heat pipe, and what undertakings have been given about the new road
surface once the work has been completed?

Some (but certainly not all) questions about parking and disabled access were
answered at the meeting on 22 December. The information will not appear on the
Energy Project website and there will be no replies to emails or tweets,
however, until next week, when Joanna Lennon, who attended the meeting, takes
up her post in liaison/communications (not sure of her exact title).

Ruth Wilkinson published her report on that meeting yesterday:
http://ruthwilkinson.mycouncillor.org.uk/category/local-issues/

It seems that the County Council is following the example of the City Council,
keeping these plans up its sleeve, ignoring all possible opportunities for
public consultation, hoping nobody complains and determined to ignore us if we
do.
I will add this to the long list of the crimes of Ian Hudspeth.

Julia, just wondering what examples you have in mind of the city council being
secretive about its plans.
It consults rather fully on planning matters - there is a statutory obligation
to do so, and I think it does.
Happy New Year - Jane

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:55:25 +1300
>
> It seems that the County Council is following the example of the City
Council, keeping these plans up its sleeve, ignoring all possible opportunities
for public consultation, hoping nobody complains and determined to ignore us if
we do.
> I will add this to the long list of the crimes of Ian Hudspeth.
>
>
> Julia Gasper
> Headington Quarry, Oxford England
> About/contact Julia Gasper: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/juliagasper2
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7sh4WqsDczdNZN1N0PEMGd
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** Donate Now - Double your donation! ***
> Inspired E-Democracy participants, volunteers, and Board members have
chipped in

Rest of post

A reminder that tomorrow Vital Energi, working on behalf of Oxford University
Hospital Trust (OUH), will start work in All Saints Road, the first incursion
into the public streets of this project.

I'm still uncertain as to the scope of what starts tomorrow - the traffic
orders and the signs on the streets say that All Saints will be closed
including its junctions with Latimer *and* Stapleton Roads for four weeks.
That would mean Stapleton Road is effectively closed a week earlier than the
part of the traffic order relating to it. The uncertainty is that OUH's
website shows the All Saints closure in two parts - the first closing Latimer
and then a second closing Stapleton (see attached). This ought to be more
sensible, but OUH haven't replied to my requests for confirmation that's what
they're doing.

Information has gone out to those directly affected - those who will have the
pipe outside their houses - but its worth noting how the phases of the work
will affect people on a wider basis. Latimer Road carries a fairly constant
flow of traffic - that will be displaced. There will be some confusion as this
kicks in (for example I imagine that a range of drivers will follow the
'Diverted Traffic' sign at the end of Bickerton Road assuming that it will lead
them to Latimer Road only to find it blocked). Not all the schools are back
tomorrow - so we should have some phasing in of the disruption.

Effectively, from Monday until July, the only N/S route between Gipsy Lane and
Windmill Road will be Lime Walk. The OUH website has the pipe works going into
Old Road at the end of February (closing one lane) - this will cause a major
problem for the hundreds of cars leaving the Churchill and Old Road campus in
the evening only to get worse when it turns into Churchill Drive in April. The
site still shows London Road being reduced to one lane from 9 March to 14
April.

There are some serious questions still be to answered about the decision making
on all this - why did the County not think this was a decision of sufficient
magnitude to involve a consultation and a decision by the cabinet member?

All-Saints-Road-Oxford-Part-1-Model.pdf 146.04kb

According to the County Council website, "The impact on general traffic is
likely to be minimal during most of the work." That will certainly not be the
case when London Road is reduced to one lane, and I suspect that it will not be
the case either when roads such as Latimer Road are closed, where there is a
constant two-way flow of traffic during the morning and evening rush hours.
Where exactly will it all go?

One other point. Has our MP said anything at all about this project? I have
written to him and asked the local Labour Party for their position on it, but
not received a reply from either. Thanks to the Lib Dems (I am not a member or
supporter) for showing some concern for their constituents.

My opening post in this thread drew attention to two sources of disruption in
the London Road/Latimer Road area of Headington: (1) the JR-Churchill
heat-pipe, and (2) the proposed student accommodation.

With respect to the first, the project is now going through the farce of
'retrospective planning permission', despite the fact that digging has
continued in the JR grounds. So not much doubt about the outcome of this
process.

With respect to the second, planning permission was refused on 2 December 2015,
because "The height, mass and bulk of the main building is overbearing and
does
not form an appropriate relationship to the street. The design does not
appropriately relate to the context of its surroundings and does not show
the high standard required for a building of this size on this prominent key
location." But less than two months later, on 27 January 2016, the planning
committee will be considering the application again, with, I imagine, the
inevitable outcome of it being approved.

So much for local democracy. And remind me to take a holiday if the heat-pipe
diggers and the student accommodation builders congregate on the corner of
London and Latimer roads at exactly the same time.

Just to add links to the two items mentioned by Jeff:

(1) Heat pipe
The planning application for the heat pipe went online this morning with 23
supporting documents, and can be seen here:
http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&;keyVal=O0VXTDMF0QY00

(2) Latimer Road development
The agenda for the Planning Review Committee to be held next Wednesday (27
January) is here, with masses about the Latimer Road item:
http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/documents/g3535/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2027-Jan-2016%2018.00%20Planning%20Review%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Having looked at the plans I am surprised by the right angles they are
using.
Isn't it a 'Plumbing #1' concept to have radiused (curved) joints for
efficient flow?
My central heating/boiler plumber says so.

Graham

On 20 January 2016 at 15:33, Stephanie Jenkins <<email obscured>>
wrote:

> Just to add links to the two items mentioned by Jeff:
>
> (1) Heat pipe
> The planning application for the heat pipe went online this morning with
> 23 supporting documents, and can be seen here:
>
>
http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&;keyVal=O0VXTDMF0QY00
>
> (2) Latimer Road development
> The agenda for the Planning Review Committee to be held next Wednesday (27
> January) is here, with masses about the Latimer Road item:
>
>
http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/documents/g3535/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2027-Jan-2016%2018.00%20Planning%20Review%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Rest of post

Surely by the time the flow reaches the Churchill it will no longer be hot?
AE

On 20 January 2016 at 16:14, Graham Smith <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Having looked at the plans I am surprised by the right angles they are
> using.
> Isn't it a 'Plumbing #1' concept to have radiused (curved) joints for
> efficient flow?
> My central heating/boiler plumber says so.
>
> Graham
>
> On 20 January 2016 at 15:33, Stephanie Jenkins <
> <email obscured>>
> wrote:
>
> > Just to add links to the two items mentioned by Jeff:
> >
> > (1) Heat pipe
> > The planning application for the heat pipe went online this morning with
> > 23 supporting documents, and can be seen here:
> >
> >
>
http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&;keyVal=O0VXTDMF0QY00
> >
> > (2) Latimer Road development
> > The agenda for the Planning Review Committee to be held next Wednesday
> (27
> > January) is here, with masses about the Latimer Road item:
> >
> >
>
http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/documents/g3535/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2027-Jan-2016%2018.00%20Planning%20Review%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Rest of post

The Frequently Asked Questions about the heat pipe are becoming Frequently
*Answered* Questions now:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/faqs.aspx

I too wondered about heat loss, but apparently because of the huge amount of
insulation (which explains why the pipes are so big), the hospital pipeline
will only lose a negligible amount of heat (about one degree) on its way from
the JR to the Churchill.

I was worried about damaged pipes (especially if boiling water leaked on to
tree roots), but there are special bits of wire in the pipes which will detect
a leak instantly and "report" back to the hospital: not only will they will
know exactly where the problem is, but they can immediately stop the water
flowing, which I found quite reassuring.

Here is the new 25-tonne boiler being lifted into the JR:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/about/energy/news-bites.aspx#lifter

If you use Twitter, it is worth following @OUH_Estates to find out what is
going on. They are communicating properly at last. You can look of course look
at the tweets here without following them:
https://twitter.com/OUH_Estates

Rest of post

Disappointed but not at all surprised to hear that planning permission has now
been granted for new student accommodation on London Road. Will anyone make
sure that the demolition and construction work required will not coincide with
the digging of the heat pipe?

This is a good question Jeff. We debated this at East Area Planning last time
around.

The delay on the energy pipe is getting serious. The end date for neighbourhood
comments is 12 Feb. People are quite rightly saying "How can we comment when
there's no construction traffic management plan?"

Vital Energi have been asked for this plan by the Planning Officer but they
haven't yet sent it in. This will set out what working hours are proposed,
among other things, and the planning officer may negotiate further on this.
Further delay until this plan is submitted may mean the comments period needs
to be extended to give people time to read it before sending in comments to the
City Council.

There are two schools of thought on works management. Should Access to
Headington and other developments like the Latimer Road build be delayed until
after the pipe is finished (if it gets permission)? Or should all parties get
together and agree a schedule of all works across the whole area?

Rest of post

Let's not assume that the monstrous five-story block that is to be built on
London and Latimer roads will do anything to resolve the issue of providing
affordable accommodation to students with limited means.

Dorset House, which is located just across Latimer Road, currently charges
between £170 and £200 per week to its residents, so I think we can assume that
the management of the new block will charge at least as much if not more.

By way of contrast, Brookes' own website states that a typical rent for a room
in a shared house is around £94 per week .
(https://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying-at-brookes/accommodation/finding-other-accommodation/)

In other words, rich pickings for the developers and the residents they have
bought out, as well as high-class accommodation for the rich kids. But no
benefits for anyone else.

And all with the support of the Labour Party.

Living in Dorset House is indeed much more expensive than living in a shared
house, and will attract richer students, but it is not quite as bad as it
looks.

The rent of £170 per week per person for a student living in a shared flat at
Dorset House includes all bills (water, electricity, and broadband), plus free
fortnightly cleaning for communal kitchens and living areas, plus a television
with licence paid:
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying-at-brookes/accommodation/halls-in-detail/dorset-house/

A student renting a house has to pay all the usual household bills in addition
to the £94 a week rent.

Also students usually have to rent an HMO for 50 weeks, but at Dorset House the
shared flats can be rented for 42 weeks.

42 weeks at Dorset House all included comes to £7,153 per year
50 weeks in an HMO costs £4,700 per year + bills, which might be quite high if
the house is old and draughty.

Jeff, it¹s very rare for councillors to vote on party lines in planning
meetings. There are many instances where Labour, Lib Dem and Green
councillors have voted in different ways to their party colleagues on
planning issues. When the Latimer and London Road development was
discussed at the East Area Planning Committee, I was one of the
councillors who spoke against the proposal and several of my Labour Party
colleagues joined me in opposing it. Indeed, given the political balance
on East Area (six Labour councillors, two Lib Dems and one Green), the
application would not have been refused were it not for the support of
Labour councillors, so it is quite inaccurate to say that the development
has the support of the City Council Labour Party as a whole. It certainly
does not. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision was overturned at the
Planning Review Committee. I don¹t know how the vote broke down but it was
not a party political decision.

I¹ve said on this forum before that I have concerns that simply building
more purpose built student accommodation won¹t free up houses for families
and I agree with you, Jeff, about the fact that this development won¹t
solve the problem of providing affordable student accommodation. I¹m sure
that Stephanie is right too that an HMO has to be rented for a whole year
rather than just for term time, but nevertheless it is still likely to be
cheaper than purpose built accommodation. What I think students are
looking for, though, is the freedom and independence to come and go as
they please and live with friends, that a shared house provides. The other
major advantage is that they can bring a car of they¹re renting a private
house. Unless rents in purpose built accommodation are vastly cheaper then
private rented accommodation will always be very attractive to students
and we may reach the stage where purpose built accommodation remains half
empty.

Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
Marston Ward
Oxford City Council

On 31/01/2016 13:48, "Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum on
behalf of Jeff Crisp" <oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org on behalf of
<email obscured>> wrote:

>Let's not assume that the monstrous five-story block that is to be built
>on London and Latimer roads will do anything to resolve the issue of
>providing affordable accommodation to students with limited means.
>
>Dorset House, which is located just across Latimer Road, currently
>charges between £170 and £200 per week to its residents, so I think we
>can assume that the management of the new block will charge at least as
>much if not more.
>
>By way of contrast, Brookes' own website states that a typical rent for a
>room in a shared house is around £94 per week .
>(https://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying-at-brookes/accommodation/finding-other
>-accommodation/)
>
>In other words, rich pickings for the developers and the residents they
>have bought out, as well as high-class accommodation for the rich kids.
>But no benefits for anyone else.
>
>And all with the support of the Labour Party.
>
>Jeff Crisp
>Headington, Oxford
>About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
>None
>
>
>------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/h3SDkurBYSf9ETIDvi2TX
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>*** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
>amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
>"Make This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

Rest of post

As I explained in a long personal email to Mr. Crisp some days ago the reason I
called in the application to Planning Review Committee was because I think that
its initial EAPC decision was unsound. I was and am fully aware that some
local residents particularly in Latimer Road do not like the proposal. But as
a councillor I and other councillors must take account of city-wide needs and
policies as well as local community concerns when dealing with planning
applications. The housing position in the city is absolutely dire for new or
growing households wanting to live here or move to a larger property. For that
reason the Local Plan Review by the Council (soon to begin) must update the
current development plan framework. That review has to seriously consider both
density and height of future developments because there is now only sufficient
free land available within the existing city boundaries to accommodate a
further 8 - 10k dwellings on currently designated housing sites. London Road
is a sensible place for sustainable higher density development. It is in a
District Centre, near shops, cafes and other facilities, on a bus route with
frequent services, close to Brookes, and in my view in an area that can take a
larger building development (opposite guest houses and small hotels) with
several institutional type developments nearby including flatted developments,
the care home, schools and existing student accommodation. Among the reasons
for refusal given by those elected members who voted to refuse the application
at EAPC were cited local Plan policies: CP6 Efficient use of land; CP8 design
related to context; CP10 design to meet functional needs. Whatever people
think about the design of the development (which had been to the expert Oxford
Design Review Panel of independent professionals) the vote to refuse
endangered, by precedent set, future development of higher buildings in
sustainable locations across the city. I was also sceptical of another reason
for refusal which was CS19 Community Safety. The rationale for this
justification for turning down the proposal was because the west side of the
proposed building overlooked a play area at Headington School's junior unit.
As the planning officer pointed out at the meeting of EAPC this was over 60
metres away from the new building and well shielded by trees (some evergreen),
bushes and fencing.

Incidentally, planning committees are largely reactive not proactive in that
they have to decide on any proposal that comes forward. We may think that a
site would be better used for a different purpose or development but if the
development meets the local development framework and local planning policies a
decision has to be based, inter alia, on those factors.

Also, as the professional officers and I pointed out at EAPC, a refusal where
the officers have recommended approval and all the statutory consultees have
raised no fundamental objections to the development is vulnerable to appeal to
be heard in front of an independent Planning Inspector. In my view if the EAPC
refusal had stood then the Council would have lost that appeal and the
development would have been allowed, possibly without the range of conditions
that the officers and members felt were appropriate. Additionally, the
developer could have applied for an award of costs against the Council if their
appeal had been upheld. Those costs could have been considerable.

The implication that the decision at EAPC was an Oxford Labour Group lash-up is
unpleasant. As Councillor Clarkson indicated some Labour members of EAPC
joined with the two local Liberal Democrat councillors t support refusal. I
understand that a Labour member and a Green Party member on PRC voted to refuse
the application. If I was being particularly ungracious I could respond to
this nasty but 'easy' slur by saying that the two local Headington ward
councillors voted against the proposal at EAPC on other than planning grounds.
But that would be just as unnecessary and untrue as Mr. Crisp's accusation.

Roy Darke

Rest of post

> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 19:33:59 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> Jeff, it¹s very rare for councillors to vote on party lines in planning
> meetings. There are many instances where Labour, Lib Dem and Green
> councillors have voted in different ways to their party colleagues on
> planning issues. When the Latimer and London Road development was
> discussed at the East Area Planning Committee, I was one of the
> councillors who spoke against the proposal and several of my Labour Party
> colleagues joined me in opposing it. Indeed, given the political balance
> on East Area (six Labour councillors, two Lib Dems and one Green), the
> application would not have been refused were it not for the support of
> Labour councillors, so it is quite inaccurate to say that the development
> has the support of the City Council Labour Party as a whole. It certainly
> does not. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision was overturned at the
> Planning Review Committee. I don¹t know how the vote broke down but it was
> not a party political decision.
>
> I¹ve said on this forum before that I have concerns that simply building
> more purpose built student accommodation won¹t free up houses for families
> and I agree with you, Jeff, about the fact that this development won¹t
> solve the problem of providing affordable student accommodation. I¹m sure
> that Stephanie is right too that an HMO has to be rented for a whole year
> rather than just for term time, but nevertheless it is still likely to be
> cheaper than purpose built accommodation. What I think students are
> looking for, though, is the freedom and independence to come and go as
> they please and live with friends, that a shared house provides. The other
> major advantage is that they can bring a car of they¹re renting a private
> house. Unless rents in purpose built accommodation are vastly cheaper then
> private rented accommodation will always be very attractive to students
> and we may reach the stage where purpose built accommodation remains half
> empty.
>
> Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
> Marston Ward
> Oxford City Council
>
> On 31/01/2016 13:48, "Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum on
> behalf of Jeff Crisp" <oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org on behalf of
> <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> >Let's not assume that the monstrous five-story block that is to be built
> >on London and Latimer roads will do anything to resolve the issue of
> >providing affordable accommodation to students with limited means.
> >
> >Dorset House, which is located just across Latimer Road, currently
> >charges between £170 and £200 per week to its residents, so I think we
> >can assume that the management of the new block will charge at least as
> >much if not more.
> >
> >By way of contrast, Brookes' own website states that a typical rent for a
> >room in a shared house is around £94 per week .
> >(https://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying-at-brookes/accommodation/finding-other
> >-accommodation/)
> >
> >In other words, rich pickings for the developers and the residents they
> >have bought out, as well as high-class accommodation for the rich kids.
> >But no benefits for anyone else.
> >
> >And all with the support of the Labour Party.
> >
> >Jeff Crisp
> >Headington, Oxford
> >About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> >
> >
> >None
> >
> >
> >------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> >http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/h3SDkurBYSf9ETIDvi2TX
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> >*** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> >amount you
> > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> >"Make This Recurring
> > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
>
>
>
>
> Mary Clarkson
> Old Headington, Oxford City Council
> About/contact Mary Clarkson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/maryclarkson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1uefxwhHXG9egpmYXVkqIf
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>

Many thanks Roy,

In the interest of transparency, could you please circulate the "long
personal email" that you sent to me on 21 January 2006, and which came with
the following and rather ominous addendum;

"This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. All
communications
sent to or from Oxford City Council may be subject to recording and/or
monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation."

Best regards.

Jeff Crisp

Tel: 07494028089

Rest of post

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:38 PM, roy darke <<email obscured>> wrote:

> As I explained in a long personal email to Mr. Crisp some days ago the
> reason I called in the application to Planning Review Committee was because
> I think that its initial EAPC decision was unsound. I was and am fully
> aware that some local residents particularly in Latimer Road do not like
> the proposal. But as a councillor I and other councillors must take
> account of city-wide needs and policies as well as local community concerns
> when dealing with planning applications. The housing position in the city
> is absolutely dire for new or growing households wanting to live here or
> move to a larger property. For that reason the Local Plan Review by the
> Council (soon to begin) must update the current development plan
> framework. That review has to seriously consider both density and height
> of future developments because there is now only sufficient free land
> available within the existing city boundaries to accommodate a further 8 -
> 10k dwellings on currently designated housing sites. London Road is a
> sensible place for sustainable higher density development. It is in a
> District Centre, near shops, cafes and other facilities, on a bus route
> with frequent services, close to Brookes, and in my view in an area that
> can take a larger building development (opposite guest houses and small
> hotels) with several institutional type developments nearby including
> flatted developments, the care home, schools and existing student
> accommodation. Among the reasons for refusal given by those elected
> members who voted to refuse the application at EAPC were cited local Plan
> policies: CP6 Efficient use of land; CP8 design related to context; CP10
> design to meet functional needs. Whatever people think about the design of
> the development (which had been to the expert Oxford Design Review Panel of
> independent professionals) the vote to refuse endangered, by precedent set,
> future development of higher buildings in sustainable locations across the
> city. I was also sceptical of another reason for refusal which was CS19
> Community Safety. The rationale for this justification for turning down
> the proposal was because the west side of the proposed building overlooked
> a play area at Headington School's junior unit. As the planning officer
> pointed out at the meeting of EAPC this was over 60 metres away from the
> new building and well shielded by trees (some evergreen), bushes and
> fencing.
>
> Incidentally, planning committees are largely reactive not proactive in
> that they have to decide on any proposal that comes forward. We may think
> that a site would be better used for a different purpose or development but
> if the development meets the local development framework and local planning
> policies a decision has to be based, *inter alia*, on those factors.
>
> Also, as the professional officers and I pointed out at EAPC, a refusal
> where the officers have recommended approval and all the statutory
> consultees have raised no fundamental objections to the development is
> vulnerable to appeal to be heard in front of an independent Planning
> Inspector. In my view if the EAPC refusal had stood then the Council would
> have lost that appeal and the development would have been allowed, possibly
> without the range of conditions that the officers and members felt were
> appropriate. Additionally, the developer could have applied for an award
> of costs against the Council if their appeal had been upheld. Those costs
> could have been considerable.
>
> The implication that the decision at EAPC was an Oxford Labour Group
> lash-up is unpleasant. As Councillor Clarkson indicated some Labour
> members of EAPC joined with the two local Liberal Democrat councillors t
> support refusal. I understand that a Labour member and a Green
> Party member on PRC voted to refuse the application. If I was being
> particularly ungracious I could respond to this nasty but 'easy' slur by
> saying that the two local Headington ward councillors voted against the
> proposal at EAPC on other than planning grounds. But that would be just as
> unnecessary and untrue as Mr. Crisp's accusation.
>
> Roy Darke
>
> > Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 19:33:59 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> > From: <email obscured>
> > To: <email obscured>; oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> >
> > Jeff, it¹s very rare for councillors to vote on party lines in planning
> > meetings. There are many instances where Labour, Lib Dem and Green
> > councillors have voted in different ways to their party colleagues on
> > planning issues. When the Latimer and London Road development was
> > discussed at the East Area Planning Committee, I was one of the
> > councillors who spoke against the proposal and several of my Labour Party
> > colleagues joined me in opposing it. Indeed, given the political balance
> > on East Area (six Labour councillors, two Lib Dems and one Green), the
> > application would not have been refused were it not for the support of
> > Labour councillors, so it is quite inaccurate to say that the development
> > has the support of the City Council Labour Party as a whole. It certainly
> > does not. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision was overturned at
> the
> > Planning Review Committee. I don¹t know how the vote broke down but it
> was
> > not a party political decision.
> >
> > I¹ve said on this forum before that I have concerns that simply building
> > more purpose built student accommodation won¹t free up houses for
> families
> > and I agree with you, Jeff, about the fact that this development won¹t
> > solve the problem of providing affordable student accommodation. I¹m sure
> > that Stephanie is right too that an HMO has to be rented for a whole year
> > rather than just for term time, but nevertheless it is still likely to be
> > cheaper than purpose built accommodation. What I think students are
> > looking for, though, is the freedom and independence to come and go as
> > they please and live with friends, that a shared house provides. The
> other
> > major advantage is that they can bring a car of they¹re renting a private
> > house. Unless rents in purpose built accommodation are vastly cheaper
> then
> > private rented accommodation will always be very attractive to students
> > and we may reach the stage where purpose built accommodation remains half
> > empty.
> >
> > Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
> > Marston Ward
> > Oxford City Council
> >
> > On 31/01/2016 13:48, "Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum
> on
> > behalf of Jeff Crisp" <oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org on behalf of
> > <email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > >Let's not assume that the monstrous five-story block that is to be built
> > >on London and Latimer roads will do anything to resolve the issue of
> > >providing affordable accommodation to students with limited means.
> > >
> > >Dorset House, which is located just across Latimer Road, currently
> > >charges between £170 and £200 per week to its residents, so I think we
> > >can assume that the management of the new block will charge at least as
> > >much if not more.
> > >
> > >By way of contrast, Brookes' own website states that a typical rent for
> a
> > >room in a shared house is around £94 per week .
> > >(
> https://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying-at-brookes/accommodation/finding-other
> > >-accommodation/)
> > >
> > >In other words, rich pickings for the developers and the residents they
> > >have bought out, as well as high-class accommodation for the rich kids.
> > >But no benefits for anyone else.
> > >
> > >And all with the support of the Labour Party.
> > >
> > >Jeff Crisp
> > >Headington, Oxford
> > >About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> > >
> > >
> > >None
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------
> > > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> > >http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/h3SDkurBYSf9ETIDvi2TX
> > > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> > >
> > >
> > >*** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> > >amount you
> > > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> > >"Make This Recurring
> > > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > >Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary Clarkson
> > Old Headington, Oxford City Council
> > About/contact Mary Clarkson:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/maryclarkson
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1uefxwhHXG9egpmYXVkqIf
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> amount you
> > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
> This Recurring
> > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>

In response to the recent emails from Mary Clarkson and Roy Darke, I feel moved
to add my personal observations of having been in many Council meetings over
the last 7 years as part of the Campaign to Save Temple Cowley Pools.
Labour has absolute control over the city at present, despite 7 out of 8 people
not voting for them. This situation will stay the same until enough people are
sufficiently disaffected with the way Labour runs things to vote them out - it
really wouldn't take that many votes (a few hundred or fewer in many cases) to
do this, but the general public seem to think they can't make a difference.
They can.
Planning committees - when I first became involved, we had monthly area
committee meetings that could make planning decisions, with an oversight appeal
committee, and a final call to the Full Council meeting. This approach was
abandoned by Labour several years ago, in favour of a much more centralised
approach; with an East and a West committee (based on population density, not
geography, so the E/W division is on a line in the Cowley Road) and one review
committee. Full Council now has no say. All three committees have a built-in
Labour majority.
What this means in practice is that it doesn't matter what the East Area
Planning Committee decides, because if it's not a decision those in power want,
there will be a call-in to the Review Committee. So, individual councillors can
vote whatever way they want at that level, demonstrating (if they wish) support
for local objections; the safety net of the Review Committee will catch
anything that the Council Executive management objects to; for example, Mary
voted quite rightly against the Barns Road planning application to replace the
Cowley community centre - but the decision was then overturned by the Planning
Review Committee, despite the many objections from the local community. I'm
sure all councillors follow the code they sign up to, but everyone knows that
at present there is only one party in control, and working very closely with
the Council officers. In the end, the Labour majority will override whatever
the people want. That's just the nature of democracy in Oxford. If anyone wants
to provide any evidence of this not being the case, feel free to provide it.
It's always highly instructive to attend a Council meeting, either a Full
Council (as next Monday from 5pm), or a City Executive Board (Wednesday 11th,
5pm) to watch what happens.
Nigel GibsonHeadington

> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>;
oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:38:18 +0000
>
> As I explained in a long personal email to Mr. Crisp some days ago the reason
I called in the application to Planning Review Committee was because I think
that its initial EAPC decision was unsound. I was and am fully aware that some
local residents particularly in Latimer Road do not like the proposal. But as
a councillor I and other councillors must take account of city-wide needs and
policies as well as local community concerns when dealing with planning
applications. The housing position in the city is absolutely dire for new or
growing households wanting to live here or move to a larger property. For that
reason the Local Plan Review by the Council (soon to begin) must update the
current development plan framework. That review has to seriously consider both
density and height of future developments because there is now only sufficient
free land available within the existing city boundaries to accommodate a
further 8 - 10k dwellings on currently designated housing sites. London Road
is a sensible place for sustainable higher density development. It is in a
District Centre, near shops, cafes and other facilities, on a bus route with
frequent services, close to Brookes, and in my view in an area that can take a
larger building development (opposite guest houses and small hotels) with
several institutional type developments nearby including flatted developments,
the care home, schools and existing student accommodation. Among the reasons
for refusal given by those elected members who voted to refuse the application
at EAPC were cited local Plan policies: CP6 Efficient use of land; CP8 design
related to context; CP10 design to meet functional needs. Whatever people
think about the design of the development (which had been to the expert Oxford
Design Review Panel of independent professionals) the vote to refuse
endangered, by precedent set, future development of higher buildings in
sustainable locations across the city. I was also sceptical of another reason
for refusal which was CS19 Community Safety. The rationale for this
justification for turning down the proposal was because the west side of the
proposed building overlooked a play area at Headington School's junior unit.
As the planning officer pointed out at the meeting of EAPC this was over 60
metres away from the new building and well shielded by trees (some evergreen),
bushes and fencing.
>
> Incidentally, planning committees are largely reactive not proactive in that
they have to decide on any proposal that comes forward. We may think that a
site would be better used for a different purpose or development but if the
development meets the local development framework and local planning policies a
decision has to be based, inter alia, on those factors.
>
> Also, as the professional officers and I pointed out at EAPC, a refusal where
the officers have recommended approval and all the statutory consultees have
raised no fundamental objections to the development is vulnerable to appeal to
be heard in front of an independent Planning Inspector. In my view if the EAPC
refusal had stood then the Council would have lost that appeal and the
development would have been allowed, possibly without the range of conditions
that the officers and members felt were appropriate. Additionally, the
developer could have applied for an award of costs against the Council if their
appeal had been upheld. Those costs could have been considerable.
>
> The implication that the decision at EAPC was an Oxford Labour Group lash-up
is unpleasant. As Councillor Clarkson indicated some Labour members of EAPC
joined with the two local Liberal Democrat councillors t support refusal. I
understand that a Labour member and a Green Party member on PRC voted to refuse
the application. If I was being particularly ungracious I could respond to
this nasty but 'easy' slur by saying that the two local Headington ward
councillors voted against the proposal at EAPC on other than planning grounds.
But that would be just as unnecessary and untrue as Mr. Crisp's accusation.

Rest of post

>
> Roy Darke
>
> > Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 19:33:59 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> > From: <email obscured>
> > To: <email obscured>; oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> >
> > Jeff, it¹s very rare for councillors to vote on party lines in planning
> > meetings. There are many instances where Labour, Lib Dem and Green
> > councillors have voted in different ways to their party colleagues on
> > planning issues. When the Latimer and London Road development was
> > discussed at the East Area Planning Committee, I was one of the
> > councillors who spoke against the proposal and several of my Labour Party
> > colleagues joined me in opposing it. Indeed, given the political balance
> > on East Area (six Labour councillors, two Lib Dems and one Green), the
> > application would not have been refused were it not for the support of
> > Labour councillors, so it is quite inaccurate to say that the development
> > has the support of the City Council Labour Party as a whole. It certainly
> > does not. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision was overturned at the
> > Planning Review Committee. I don¹t know how the vote broke down but it was
> > not a party political decision.
> >
> > I¹ve said on this forum before that I have concerns that simply building
> > more purpose built student accommodation won¹t free up houses for families
> > and I agree with you, Jeff, about the fact that this development won¹t
> > solve the problem of providing affordable student accommodation. I¹m sure
> > that Stephanie is right too that an HMO has to be rented for a whole year
> > rather than just for term time, but nevertheless it is still likely to be
> > cheaper than purpose built accommodation. What I think students are
> > looking for, though, is the freedom and independence to come and go as
> > they please and live with friends, that a shared house provides. The other
> > major advantage is that they can bring a car of they¹re renting a private
> > house. Unless rents in purpose built accommodation are vastly cheaper then
> > private rented accommodation will always be very attractive to students
> > and we may reach the stage where purpose built accommodation remains half
> > empty.
> >
> > Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
> > Marston Ward
> > Oxford City Council
> >
> > On 31/01/2016 13:48, "Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum on
> > behalf of Jeff Crisp" <oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org on behalf of
> > <email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > >Let's not assume that the monstrous five-story block that is to be built
> > >on London and Latimer roads will do anything to resolve the issue of
> > >providing affordable accommodation to students with limited means.
> > >
> > >Dorset House, which is located just across Latimer Road, currently
> > >charges between £170 and £200 per week to its residents, so I think we
> > >can assume that the management of the new block will charge at least as
> > >much if not more.
> > >
> > >By way of contrast, Brookes' own website states that a typical rent for a
> > >room in a shared house is around £94 per week .
> > >(https://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying-at-brookes/accommodation/finding-other
> > >-accommodation/)
> > >
> > >In other words, rich pickings for the developers and the residents they
> > >have bought out, as well as high-class accommodation for the rich kids.
> > >But no benefits for anyone else.
> > >
> > >And all with the support of the Labour Party.
> > >
> > >Jeff Crisp
> > >Headington, Oxford
> > >About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> > >
> > >
> > >None
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------
> > > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> > >http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/h3SDkurBYSf9ETIDvi2TX
> > > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> > >
> > >
> > >*** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> > >amount you
> > > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> > >"Make This Recurring
> > > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > >Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary Clarkson
> > Old Headington, Oxford City Council
> > About/contact Mary Clarkson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/maryclarkson
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1uefxwhHXG9egpmYXVkqIf
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
> > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>
>
> Roy Darke
> New Marston, Oxford
> About/contact Roy Darke: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roydarke
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5sKUBQcjyhlnbgg5pucKDX
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>

Stephanie wants us all to show more thread discipline: Nigel Gibson is going
off thread (the "Disruption" thread is about Headington OUH pipeline and London
Road development); I have already used more space than I should on the latter;
I have a busy week; the guillotine on number of posts will catch me soon. So I
am going to sweep up a number of issues here.

Nigel takes the thread into the meaning of democracy and the value of 'second
chambers', decision reviews and scrutiny. I think all the latter are a good
idea. But what Nigel seems to want is what a long tradition of writers has
called 'participatory democracy'. The anarchist in me thinks that is a good
idea. But the pragmatist says the world is getting more complex and the needs
of the weaker and voiceless are growing. So representative democracy is not
going to go away much as Nigel wants it to. On another of his points I too
want to see more people use the mandate at elections. That is why the Council
has being doing the heavy lifting to get more people on the register - with
some success I should add - another thing that this Council does well!

Jeff Crisp emailed me on my Council address so my reply went back with a
standard Council caution under Data Protection law. I get lots of casework via
email with personal details which the writer does not want spread around. So
the standard Council caution is to protect confidentiality, not block
transparency. No conspiracy here. If Jeff wants to put my reply to his
personal email to me on the forum he can do so - the caution is there to
protect him, not me. But that reply is even longer than my recent post on
Forum and says similar things in greater detail, so he can judge.

Roy Darke

From: <email obscured>
To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>; <email obscured>;
oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
Subject: RE: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 07:55:35 +0000

Rest of post

Nigel Gibson has certainly not said that he wants representative democracy to
go away. He is merely referring to the fact that so few people vote in
elections, and under a FPP system, candidates backed by a small percentage of
the vote and smaller percentage of the whole population win.
I cannot see any logical reason to suppose that Roy Darke represents the views
of the
"weaker and voiceless".
On what does he base this claim?
Everybody has the option to vote, if they don't register it is the result of
apathy, and nobody not even Mr Darke can claim the votes they did not cast.
Typially far more people sign petitions on specific issues than vote in local
elections.

<<But the pragmatist says the world is getting more complex and the needs
of the weaker and voiceless are growing. So representative democracy is not
going to go away much as Nigel wants it to.>>

With Roy Darke's permission, here is his e-mail to me about the London and
Latimer roads student accommodation project:

Dear Mr Crisp

Thank you for getting in touch.

I fully appreciate that this proposed development has caused local concern.
That concern was known to East Area Planning Committee on 2nd. December being
identified in the professional officers' report and seen in the 5 local
speakers against the development. The many local concerns were addressed in the
report and in the professional officer replies to queries raised during the
discussions on 2nd. December.

The officer report had a clear recommendation to approve and the scheme had the
benefit of being seen by the Oxford Design Review Panel on, I believe, 3 prior
occasions where design issues were debated with the developer and suggestions
for design amendments made. Those suggestions were incorporated into the final
design that was presented to committee.

The proposal to refuse the application on 2nd. December was first made by one
of the ward councillors (the two Headington ward councillors happen to sit on
EAPC). In the subsequent discussion those who supported refusal raised 6
material matters. These were that the development was at odds with 6 of the
policies in the Local Plan 2001 - 2016 and Core Strategy, namely CP1
Development Propsals; CP6 Efficient Use of Land and Density; CP8 Design
Development related to its context; CP 10 Siting Development to meet Functional
needs; CS18 Urban design, town character, historic environment; CS19 Community
Safety. The statement you quote was put together by officers after the
committee meeting as a synopsis of the grounds for refusal discussed in
committee.

My support for call-in to Planning Review Committee was on grounds that I
considered the decision to refuse was 'unsafe' - to use a judicial term. A
developer that has an application refused has the right of appeal and if the
appeal is upheld by the Planning Inspectorate the developer can also request a
ruling on costs, I.e. expense / lost income etc. in my view, at least 3 of the
grounds given for refusal are unsound, and indeed, positively dangerous for the
proper and sustainable future development of the city. That is, I believe that
the refusal endangers 3 of our key policies (CP6, CP8, CS18). I also believe
that EAPC made a wrong call in relation to CS19.

To expand on this set of concerns would make this reply even longer but,
essentially, I think this is a site that can take higher density and car-free
development for students. It is on a bus route in a district centre and within
a short distance of Brookes University. It is on a street if no particular
design character and most neighbouring properties will not be negatively
affected by the development. Those are comments about which we might disagree
but behind my comments is the wider context of Oxford where we have very little
spare land for development and, therefore, need to start looking at
intensification of suitable sites. I think that stretch of London Road is an
appropriate place for higher density development for the reasons stated above.

So I asked that the proposal be tested again by another group of city
councillors. I hope that PRC will consider the wider precedent that refusal of
this proposal could mean for some of our core policies. Whilst Councillors
Wilkinson and Khan acted within their rights in supporting refusal along with
some other members of EAPC they also made some comments that show they do not
know what some of the Local Plan and Core Strategy mean. And there is always
concern when local lobbying is at high pitch that member judgement can swing in
favour of local interests rather than the wider interests of the Oxford
community as a whole.

Your email suggests that local opinion should override all other material
considerations. I do not agree with both the implication in your email of what
is meant by the notion of democracy nor do I agree with your implication that
local opinion should be necessarily paramount in the decision process on
planning matters.

We shall see what happens at PRC.

Regards

Roy Darke

I asked the OUHT whether the digging of the heat-pipe might threaten the
structural integrity of houses and other buildings along its route, and who
exactly would be responsible if this was to happen. Here is their reply, which
tries to answer my first question but which ignores the second.

Dear Mr Crisp,

The scale drawings show that no property on Latimer Road is closer than 8
metres from the trench and you have a gas main that is closer to your house
than this. There is also electric, water and foul waste, drains in the road and
the work will not disturb any of them either.

Vital Energi has recently done an almost identical project in Nottingham where
they dug a similar trench for the exact same pipework adjacent to a building
with a fragile wall. A sensor was put on the wall to measure the impact of the
work and no trace was registered and no damage sustained.

The company has also recently dug about a metre away from buildings here on the
JRH site and, again, no impact to the structures was registered.

Vital Energi also use diamond tipped circular saws to cut through the surface
which do not vibrate and give a cleaner and better finish. They have 40 years’
experience of laying pipelines like this and do not have claims of structural
damage from residential properties along the length of the pipeline.

This looks awful. Aren't the diggers obliged to finish the trench with a
better and more compatible surface?

[image: Embedded image permalink]
[image: Embedded image permalink]

Sorry, Jeff, it is not possible to embed images in a message to the forum: we
can't see anything.

If you send a message via the website, click on "Choose File" and select the
image before posting; and if you send it via email, just attach the image in
the normal way.

You may be thinking of the images that the O.U. Hospitals Estates Department
have just tweeted about the work near Sandfield Nursery:
https://twitter.com/OUH_Estates/status/695636733011107840
The scars are very dark, but the contrast is made more dramatic by the fact
that there is mud on the road, and I think it will end up much the same colour:
new tarmac fades quickly.

The surface in All Saints Road is terrible, but it is intended to be temporary.

Ruth

As a Councillor you can ask your officers to extend the period for
consultation. In turn they can ask the applicant to agree an extension of time
in which to determine the application.

If the construction traffic plan is mandatory under the Council's validation
requirements by which planning applications are registered then the application
should not have been registered. It may therefore be invalid.

Out of curiosity I have just looked at the application and am quite taken by
the letter of a local resident. She points out ownership of property with road
frontage is presumed to extend to the mid point of the road. The applicant
should notify every person with an interest in land subject of the application.
In fact they have only notified the County Council and the NHS Trust. It is
therefore my contention that the application is, in any case, invalid.

Food for thought.

Andrew

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:29:03 +1300
>
> This is a good question Jeff. We debated this at East Area Planning last time
around.
>
> The delay on the energy pipe is getting serious. The end date for
neighbourhood comments is 12 Feb. People are quite rightly saying "How can we
comment when there's no construction traffic management plan?"
>
> Vital Energi have been asked for this plan by the Planning Officer but they
haven't yet sent it in. This will set out what working hours are proposed,
among other things, and the planning officer may negotiate further on this.
Further delay until this plan is submitted may mean the comments period needs
to be extended to give people time to read it before sending in comments to the
City Council.
>
> There are two schools of thought on works management. Should Access to
Headington and other developments like the Latimer Road build be delayed until
after the pipe is finished (if it gets permission)? Or should all parties get
together and agree a schedule of all works across the whole area?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ruth Wilkinson
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Ruth Wilkinson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4YfWYmbNg7z3no7YtUZ2Fu
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

Hi Andrew
If the ground is effectively owned to mid point by the resident then surely,
not only have the relevant residents to be notified of the intended duct etc,
but must give approval, otherwise the duct installer / duct and contents are
trespassing?
Would the Council be party to a potential case or series of legal cases of
'approving' potential instances of trespass, depending on the number of
residents / businesses that object?

Best wishes

Peter

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Feb 2016, at 9:52 pm, Andrew Lewis <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Ruth
>
> As a Councillor you can ask your officers to extend the period for
consultation. In turn they can ask the applicant to agree an extension of time
in which to determine the application.
>
> If the construction traffic plan is mandatory under the Council's validation
requirements by which planning applications are registered then the application
should not have been registered. It may therefore be invalid.
>
> Out of curiosity I have just looked at the application and am quite taken by
the letter of a local resident. She points out ownership of property with road
frontage is presumed to extend to the mid point of the road. The applicant
should notify every person with an interest in land subject of the application.
In fact they have only notified the County Council and the NHS Trust. It is
therefore my contention that the application is, in any case, invalid.
>
> Food for thought.
>
>
> Andrew
>
>> From: <email obscured>
>> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
>> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:29:03 +1300
>>
>> This is a good question Jeff. We debated this at East Area Planning last
time around.
>>
>> The delay on the energy pipe is getting serious. The end date for
neighbourhood comments is 12 Feb. People are quite rightly saying "How can we
comment when there's no construction traffic management plan?"
>>
>> Vital Energi have been asked for this plan by the Planning Officer but they
haven't yet sent it in. This will set out what working hours are proposed,
among other things, and the planning officer may negotiate further on this.
Further delay until this plan is submitted may mean the comments period needs
to be extended to give people time to read it before sending in comments to the
City Council.
>>
>> There are two schools of thought on works management. Should Access to
Headington and other developments like the Latimer Road build be delayed until
after the pipe is finished (if it gets permission)? Or should all parties get
together and agree a schedule of all works across the whole area?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ruth Wilkinson
>> Headington, Oxford
>> About/contact Ruth Wilkinson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
>>
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4YfWYmbNg7z3no7YtUZ2Fu
>> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>>
>>
>> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
>> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
>> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
>> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
>> http://e-democracy.org/donate
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Andrew Lewis
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Andrew Lewis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewlewis
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/607CUnJcOQWuSAFgpZqRlA
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

While I appreciate the nicety of the legal question that's being raised about
ownership of the subsoil, I wouldn't be happy for any of my Council Tax money
to be spent supporting what would essentially be a series of private claims by
the frontagers, presumably for damages and/or payment for granting wayleaves
over their property (if that's what it is). I imagine Council taxpayers
elsewhere in Oxford outside our little Headington bubble would feel even more
strongly about it.

I’m more concerned about the Trust / Aviva wasting ‘our' money over 25 years on
a scheme that does not appear to offer value for money, will cause great
disruption, is not necessary and not prepared to either clarify or justify the
expenditure and using carbon reduction (at what cost?) as a reason.

Peter West
On 6 Feb 2016, at 17:22, Anthony Turton <<email obscured>> wrote:

While I appreciate the nicety of the legal question that's being raised about
ownership of the subsoil, I wouldn't be happy for any of my Council Tax money
to be spent supporting what would essentially be a series of private claims by
the frontagers, presumably for damages and/or payment for granting wayleaves
over their property (if that's what it is). I imagine Council taxpayers
elsewhere in Oxford outside our little Headington bubble would feel even more
strongly about it.
Anthony Turton
Headington, Oxford
About/contact Anthony Turton: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/anthonyturton

None

Rest of post

Quote from above "Out of curiosity I have just looked at the application and am
quite taken by
the letter of a local resident. She points out ownership of property with road
frontage is presumed to extend to the mid point of the road. The applicant
should notify every person with an interest in land subject of the application.
In fact they have only notified the County Council and the NHS Trust. It is
therefore my contention that the application is, in any case, invalid."

I think that argument regarding road ownership extending to the midline only
applies to unadopted roads - and of course coming with that ownership is the
requirement for said owner also to maintain that bit of road! This may help to
clarify: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00402.pdf

Rest of post

> She points out ownership of property with road frontage is presumed to
> extend to the mid point of the road.

>
> I think that is only the case if the road is "unadopted" (ie: private)

>
>
>
>
> In fact they have only notified the County Council and the NHS Trust. It
> is therefore my contention that the application is, in any case, invalid.
>
> Food for thought.
>
>
> Andrew
>
> > From: <email obscured> <javascript:;>
> > Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> > To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org <javascript:;>
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:29:03 +1300
> >
> > This is a good question Jeff. We debated this at East Area Planning last
> time around.
> >
> > The delay on the energy pipe is getting serious. The end date for
> neighbourhood comments is 12 Feb. People are quite rightly saying "How can
> we comment when there's no construction traffic management plan?"
> >
> > Vital Energi have been asked for this plan by the Planning Officer but
> they haven't yet sent it in. This will set out what working hours are
> proposed, among other things, and the planning officer may negotiate
> further on this. Further delay until this plan is submitted may mean the
> comments period needs to be extended to give people time to read it before
> sending in comments to the City Council.
> >
> > There are two schools of thought on works management. Should Access to
> Headington and other developments like the Latimer Road build be delayed
> until after the pipe is finished (if it gets permission)? Or should all
> parties get together and agree a schedule of all works across the whole
> area?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ruth Wilkinson
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Ruth Wilkinson:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4YfWYmbNg7z3no7YtUZ2Fu
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org <javascript:;>
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever
> monthly amount you
> > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> "Make This Recurring
> > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>
>
> Andrew Lewis
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Andrew Lewis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewlewis
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/607CUnJcOQWuSAFgpZqRlA
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org <javascript:;>
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> "Make This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

Paul, the document you link to is interesting, but it's using shorthand. The
County Council has confirmed that it "doesn't own the highway" and the document
you link to says that the County Council as Highway Authority would "own" an
adopted street. Both propositions are wrong. When a highway is adopted, it
"vests" in the Highway Authority - in this case the County Council. There is
no statutory definition of what "vesting" means or the extent of it, so the
legal meaning comes from case law arising out of scenarios quite like this one,
where people have argued about it (there have been lots of them).

The historical background is that "vesting" was not meant to expropriate land
from anyone any more than was necessary to give the Highway Authority the
control over the road that it needed in order to look after it. The
established principle therefore is that what the Highway Authority "owns" is
the surface crust and as much of the depth underneath it (only) as is needed
for street maintenance. This was expressed to be the top spade depth, or two
spade depths at the outside. The land underneath remained with the original
owners, assumed absent contrary evidence to be the frontagers. Utility
companies and cable companies have separate statutory powers to lay
infrastructure in the street, for the benefit of us all.

Some will see this as a mere technicality, but if we think that private land
rights matter, we ought to be concerned about public authorities acting outside
their powers, or not being conscious of the limits on their powers; and about
encroachments by third parties that are not lawful.
Vital Energi aren't a utility company or statutory undertaker, and the best
they can do on this is to assert (a mere assertion, no authority) that these
days, we can assume that the highway goes as deep as they want it to. It
reminds me of Humpty Dumpty.

Have you looked at your title deeds and/or land certificate? That should tell
you what you own.

I have replied to Andrew off Forum re various planning points, some of which
have been overtaken by events but were broadly in hand at the time.

Today's news is that Vital Energi has sent in further information to support
the application but the construction traffic management plan does not address
all the issues the planners require it to. This means that VE will be asked for
more information. The full three week consultation period will re-start only
when acceptable information has been received, as people will want to read all
of it before making up their minds whether to send in supportive comments or
objections.

The application will therefore not make it onto the agenda for the East Area
Planning Committee's scheduled March meeting.

The initial comments from Highfield Residents' Association have been submitted
this morning but I don't know how quickly they will be uploaded to the
Council's website - I do know that the case officer has seen them and does have
a copy.

Who exactly was responsible for the original - and evidently faulty - decision
that no planning permission was required?

And by the way, I never received a reply from our MP about his position on this
fiasco. Has he said anything at all about it?

While I am not a member or supporter, the Lib Dems have made all the running on
this issue.

The running to catch up with something that bolted out of the open stable door
some time ago?

Two words. Democratic deficit.

To be fair to local councillors, Jeff, you live in Headington Ward, which is
the main one affected by the heat pipe, and this doesn't have any Labour
councillors: Ruth Wilkinson and Altaf Khan (city) and Roz Smith (county) are
all LibDems.

Churchill ward will also be affected in relation to Old Road and Churchill
Drive, and the three Labour councillors for that ward -- Susan Brown & Mark
Lygo (city) and Liz Brighouse (county) -- have been attending meetings about
the pipe, but they don't seem keen on engaging in this forum.

Andrew Smith MP is usually very good about replying: maybe you should try
emailing him again now that the pipe is in even hotter water?

The comments of the Highfield Residents' Association, whose streets will bear
the brunt of the work, have been added to the online planning application
(under the Documents tab):
http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&;keyVal=O0VXTDMF0QY00
Otherwise only one individual has commented.

The project has just been delayed for another three weeks as the planners have
demanded more information, and so the application will not now be able to go
before the East Area Planning Committee until at least March:
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/14265546.Controversial_hospital_pipeline_work_delayed_by_request_for_more_planning_info/

Happy St Scholastica's Day, everyone!

On 13 December 2015, I complained that the Oxford City Council publication
'Your Oxford' was full of self-congratulatory messages about the work of the
City Council but had made no reference at all to the disruptive and hitherto
secretive heat pipe project. Two days later, Councillor Dee Sinclair replied:
"The City Council is not responsible for highways issues. That is the County
Council, which has been made clear in numerous previous postings on this
matter." That statement appears to have been misleading, as the City Council is
now very much engaged in this "highways matter". See this:
http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=O0VXTDMF0QY00

Hey, come on. Dee Sinclair can answer for herself if she wants to, but now
that it has been ascertained that planning permission is required for the
pipeline which very few people knew about (even your city councillors) until
around Christmas, then Oxford City Council is now directly involved as the
Local Planning Authority.

Oxfordshire County Council (the Highways Authority) will be asked as a
statutory consultee for its views on the pipeline as part of the required
consultation process as with any other planning application. Its views in that
consultation will be 'material' to the determination of the planning
application and if they say ask for provisions to cope with traffic and
transport disruption that is very likely to be incorporated into a set of
recommendations by City planning officers. My committee will take the decision
on the application as and when

But Jeff is being obtuse in not realising the difference between the Highways
Authority - responsible for upkeep of roads, transport planning, road traffic
orders etc. - and the City Council as the LPA. And by the way, many of those
accolades about City Council come from independent bodies like Investors for
People and the like, so it is not a 'con' as implied.

Roy Darke

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:13:15 +1300
>
> On 13 December 2015, I complained that the Oxford City Council publication
'Your Oxford' was full of self-congratulatory messages about the work of the
City Council but had made no reference at all to the disruptive and hitherto
secretive heat pipe project. Two days later, Councillor Dee Sinclair replied:
"The City Council is not responsible for highways issues. That is the County
Council, which has been made clear in numerous previous postings on this
matter." That statement appears to have been misleading, as the City Council is
now very much engaged in this "highways matter". See this:
http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=O0VXTDMF0QY00
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/IZnHvahx1wyT0ENyNm9Sc
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

Hopefully we should get some clarity on the process by which we have ended up
here when the *County* Council looks at this at their Performance Scrutiny
Committee next week (10am 18 February). A key issue will be why the County
viewed this as not being a 'significant decision' - which would have forced all
of this out into the open mid-way through last year.

Meanwhile, it's hard to comment on the planning permission application because
the traffic management plan hasn't been submitted. Which is odd, because you'd
have thought that those proposing this would have had all the details worked
out because the County were content that this wasn't a 'significant decision'.

I don't think I am being obtuse (i.e. "annoyingly insensitive or slow to
understand.") Just saying how things look from the perspective of an ordinary
resident.

Jeff...catching up on posts and having seen more (in particular Roys and your
latest) since this one, you should not assume anyone at the City or County
Council decided planning permission was or was not required. They would need to
have been asked the question and provided with the information. And as
indicated elsewhere they operate in different fashions and cover different
things as Authorities. So essentially the City is repsonsible for Planning and
the County for Highways.

Also as Stephanie says you need to distuingh in each Council/Authority between
Officers and members (elected Councillors) and who deals with what in a
particular area. So the pipe is mainly in Rurh's ward and fair do's for the way
she has acted on this but that is not to denigrate anyone else.

Like Mike says, I certainly look forward to seeing the Scrutiny Committee
report although not sure how detailed it will be or whether it will cover
Planning or relationship to the City. If anyone sees the aggenda/report go
online can a link be posted please? I am very curious

andrew

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:12:40 +1300
>
>
> Who exactly was responsible for the original - and evidently faulty -
decision that no planning permission was required?
>
> And by the way, I never received a reply from our MP about his position on
this fiasco. Has he said anything at all about it?
>
> While I am not a member or supporter, the Lib Dems have made all the running
on this issue.
>
>
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/46i9IAZkGm8HcIb7G6yPzh
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

And so, the County's Director for Environment and Economy has produced her
paper for the scrutiny committee(1). We learn that the County have been
discussing this with the Trust since October 2013. We discover that there had
been a plan to start work around Christmas 2014. We are told that although
they now think of this as 'exceptional' they are happy that this is still not a
'significant' project and did not need a public 'key' decision taken.

We also learn, as I think we guessed, that the County allowed the Trust to
press ahead and curtail the formal consultation phase so that the works would
be finished before they started their own 'Access to Headington' works.

They have, sadly, now had to spend an exceptional amount of officer time
responding to concerns about the scheme!

The County hold that it's the job of the proposer of works to do consultation
but they say it is
"recognised that officers should inform the local councillor of schemes of an
exceptional nature such as this in order that local considerations can be given
adequate consideration at an earlier stage." So, they accept we should have
been told - but not that we should have been consulted.

Maybe that would have saved them time, and us a great deal of pain, if they had
insisted (and facilitated) conversations with the community in 2014 or the
first eleven months of 2015 - rather than going along with an approach that
promoted secrecy about it.

(1)
http://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s32578/PSC_FEB1816R09%20Headington%20Pipeline.pdf

Very strange that planning permission has been refused for a Finders Keepers
advert at 42 London Road because it is "an incongruous insertion into a
broadly residential frontage that would harm the visual character and amenity
of the area," while planning permission has been granted for a monstrous
five-storey student residence just the other side of Latimer Road.

In case you missed this Oxford Mail article:

TRANSPORT bosses are to rethink how road closures are allowed after a row about
a £14.8m hospital pipeline scheme.

The review follows public outcry over proposals to build an underground heating
system between the John Radcliffe and Churchill hospitals.

People in Headington were only told about the six-month project at the end of
November last year – just over a month before it was due to start – and have
accused authorities of keeping them “in the dark” about the work.

The Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust scheme started on January
4 but ground to a halt just days later after it emerged contractor Vital Energi
had not obtained planning permission.

Oxfordshire County Council, which separately approved road closures needed for
the work, yesterday admitted it should have informed local councillors sooner.

A report to the scrutiny committee said: “Staff acted within their powers and
remits, but the exceptional nature of these works and the level of disquiet
expressed suggests the working practices of issuing S50 notices should be
reviewed.

“While it was the responsibility of the university hospital trust or its agents
to manage consultation with residents and businesses, it is recognised officers
should inform the local councillor of schemes of an exceptional nature such as
this.”

The committee is due to question council officers about their involvement in
the pipeline project next Thursday.

The report to councillors said OUH had first approached the county council
about the scheme on October 22, 2013, with the information about when road
closures would be needed sent by Vital Energi on October 21, 2015. The
hospitals trust did not publicise its plans until November 30, 2015, the county
council report said.

Mike Ratcliffe, chairman of the Headington Neighbourhood Draft Plan steering
group committee, said: “By keeping us in the dark, it was implied that what was
happening to our roads wasn’t a big deal, when in fact it was.

“It will affect the thousands of people who drive along Old Road, not to
mention the people living in the houses here.”

Bickerton Road resident Maureen Joseph, 79, added: “I can’t believe the people
involved have known about this process for years and only let us know what was
going on once it had started.

“The first we knew of it was a few leaflets through the door and our roads
being dug up, which really isn’t on.”

Last month OUH’s chairman, Dame Fiona Caldicott, issued an apology to residents
on behalf of the trust, adding: “This has not been handled as well as we could
have done.”

Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable result
of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated. Did the
parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively disruptive project
like this could go ahead without extensive consultation?

Rest of post

As I have said before Vitalenergi staff at the December Liaison meeting with
residents recounted that they have implemented several similar pipeline schemes
elsewhere in England. If I recall correctly they mentioned Nottingham and
Ipswich (among others). I guess they have assumed that they (and others
including LPAs) are a public utility rather than a commercial firm with its
main interest in its shareholders (similar comments apply to water, gas, phone
and electricity companies). Vitalenergi may have misled other LPAs for 10
years. Andy always thought they should have been captured within the DC system
and so did OCC planners after reflection.

Time to look again at 'permitted development rights' which allows commercial
bodies to dig up roads etc. with impunity. Of course, the current government
will not go there, for obvious reasons.

Roy Darke

Sent from my iPad

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>
> Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable
result of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated. Did
the parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively disruptive
project like this could go ahead without extensive consultation?
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
> £14.8m hospital pipeline declared a "disaster" after application is made
invalid
>
> Sophie Mogridge, Reporter covering Headington & Marston / 3 minutes ago /
News
>
>
> PLANS for a controversial heating pipe in Headington have been declared
"invalid" by Oxford City Council.
>
> The application for the project - which would connect the John Radcliffe and
Churchill Hospitals - has now been suspended over confusion as to whether
Oxfordshire County Council own the affected land.
>
> Patsy Dell, head of planning and regulatory services for the council, said:
"The retrospective planning application to install an energy pipe between
Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals has been declared invalid.
>
> "This is because the necessary notifications relating to the ownership of the
land have not been carried out in accordance with the mandatory requirements.
>
> "Specifically, it is our understanding that Oxfordshire County Council may
not own all of the highway land where the pipeline would be installed.
>
> "As a result, the application cannot progress until further information is
provided or a revised application form has been submitted."
>
> City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson said she believes the process has been a
"disaster from beginning to end" after Vital Energi were forced to fill in
trenches they had dug to install the pipes before applying for permission.
>
> She said: "It really is quite something to have ended up in this situation
and I'm not sure where we go from here,"
>
> "The earliest time we're going to be able to discuss the application further
is May."
>
> Oxford Mail have been unable to reach Vital Energi for a comment.
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/944nZpRGCLYgNfOnwf8xU
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

Having watched this debacle of a project unravel, in my
opinion it has little to do with Vitalenergi and nothing to do with party
politics, however close we are to an election.

The fault for this waste of our money lies with the NHS
Trust (who should have gone public with this much, much earlier), the County
Council (who should know what they own, and consult, and consult much earlier)
and the City Council (who chose, very late, to identify the need for a planning
application).

A test for councillors now is how they show they are calling
relevant officers to account in all three public sector organisations and
actually challenging the decisions that have
been made, and so producing an outcome that demonstrates such fiascos can be
less
likely to happen in future.

Less party politics please, and much, much more working for
the people you have been elected to represent.
Nigel GibsonHeadington
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> From: <email obscured>
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:43:47 +0000
> To: <email obscured>
> CC: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> As I have said before Vitalenergi staff at the December Liaison meeting with
residents recounted that they have implemented several similar pipeline schemes
elsewhere in England. If I recall correctly they mentioned Nottingham and
Ipswich (among others). I guess they have assumed that they (and others
including LPAs) are a public utility rather than a commercial firm with its
main interest in its shareholders (similar comments apply to water, gas, phone
and electricity companies). Vitalenergi may have misled other LPAs for 10
years. Andy always thought they should have been captured within the DC system
and so did OCC planners after reflection.
>
> Time to look again at 'permitted development rights' which allows commercial
bodies to dig up roads etc. with impunity. Of course, the current government
will not go there, for obvious reasons.
>
> Roy Darke
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable
result of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated. Did
the parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively disruptive
project like this could go ahead without extensive consultation?
> >
> > ----------------------------
> >
> >
> > £14.8m hospital pipeline declared a "disaster" after application is made
invalid
> >
> > Sophie Mogridge, Reporter covering Headington & Marston / 3 minutes ago /
News
> >
> >
> > PLANS for a controversial heating pipe in Headington have been declared
"invalid" by Oxford City Council.
> >
> > The application for the project - which would connect the John Radcliffe
and Churchill Hospitals - has now been suspended over confusion as to whether
Oxfordshire County Council own the affected land.
> >
> > Patsy Dell, head of planning and regulatory services for the council, said:
"The retrospective planning application to install an energy pipe between
Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals has been declared invalid.
> >
> > "This is because the necessary notifications relating to the ownership of
the land have not been carried out in accordance with the mandatory
requirements.
> >
> > "Specifically, it is our understanding that Oxfordshire County Council may
not own all of the highway land where the pipeline would be installed.
> >
> > "As a result, the application cannot progress until further information is
provided or a revised application form has been submitted."
> >
> > City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson said she believes the process has been a
"disaster from beginning to end" after Vital Energi were forced to fill in
trenches they had dug to install the pipes before applying for permission.
> >
> > She said: "It really is quite something to have ended up in this situation
and I'm not sure where we go from here,"
> >
> > "The earliest time we're going to be able to discuss the application
further is May."
> >
> > Oxford Mail have been unable to reach Vital Energi for a comment.
> >
> > Jeff Crisp
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/944nZpRGCLYgNfOnwf8xU
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
> > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
>
>
> Roy Darke
> New Marston, Oxford
> About/contact Roy Darke: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roydarke
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4oJqmL3WrCLVkWTpSvho21
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

I think the subtle difference is that Vital have carried out numerous projects
where the land is owned by the organisation who commissioned the work. I don’t
suppose anyone noticed that Headington is not owned by the Trust or Councils
and the various organisations forgot to ask the basic question about the
implications during the design / planning stages!

Peter
On 16 Feb 2016, at 17:01, Nigel Gibson <<email obscured>> wrote:

Having watched this debacle of a project unravel, in my
opinion it has little to do with Vitalenergi and nothing to do with party
politics, however close we are to an election.

The fault for this waste of our money lies with the NHS
Trust (who should have gone public with this much, much earlier), the County
Council (who should know what they own, and consult, and consult much earlier)
and the City Council (who chose, very late, to identify the need for a planning
application).

A test for councillors now is how they show they are calling
relevant officers to account in all three public sector organisations and
actually challenging the decisions that have
been made, and so producing an outcome that demonstrates such fiascos can be
less
likely to happen in future.

Less party politics please, and much, much more working for
the people you have been elected to represent.
Nigel GibsonHeadington
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> From: <email obscured>
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:43:47 +0000
> To: <email obscured>
> CC: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> As I have said before Vitalenergi staff at the December Liaison meeting with
residents recounted that they have implemented several similar pipeline schemes
elsewhere in England. If I recall correctly they mentioned Nottingham and
Ipswich (among others). I guess they have assumed that they (and others
including LPAs) are a public utility rather than a commercial firm with its
main interest in its shareholders (similar comments apply to water, gas, phone
and electricity companies). Vitalenergi may have misled other LPAs for 10
years. Andy always thought they should have been captured within the DC system
and so did OCC planners after reflection.
>
> Time to look again at 'permitted development rights' which allows commercial
bodies to dig up roads etc. with impunity. Of course, the current government
will not go there, for obvious reasons.
>
> Roy Darke
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 16 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable
result of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated. Did
the parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively disruptive
project like this could go ahead without extensive consultation?
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>>
>> £14.8m hospital pipeline declared a "disaster" after application is made
invalid
>>
>> Sophie Mogridge, Reporter covering Headington & Marston / 3 minutes ago /
News
>>
>>
>> PLANS for a controversial heating pipe in Headington have been declared
"invalid" by Oxford City Council.
>>
>> The application for the project - which would connect the John Radcliffe and
Churchill Hospitals - has now been suspended over confusion as to whether
Oxfordshire County Council own the affected land.
>>
>> Patsy Dell, head of planning and regulatory services for the council, said:
"The retrospective planning application to install an energy pipe between
Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals has been declared invalid.
>>
>> "This is because the necessary notifications relating to the ownership of
the land have not been carried out in accordance with the mandatory
requirements.
>>
>> "Specifically, it is our understanding that Oxfordshire County Council may
not own all of the highway land where the pipeline would be installed.
>>
>> "As a result, the application cannot progress until further information is
provided or a revised application form has been submitted."
>>
>> City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson said she believes the process has been a
"disaster from beginning to end" after Vital Energi were forced to fill in
trenches they had dug to install the pipes before applying for permission.
>>
>> She said: "It really is quite something to have ended up in this situation
and I'm not sure where we go from here,"
>>
>> "The earliest time we're going to be able to discuss the application further
is May."
>>
>> Oxford Mail have been unable to reach Vital Energi for a comment.
>>
>> Jeff Crisp
>> Headington, Oxford
>> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>>
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/944nZpRGCLYgNfOnwf8xU
>> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>>
>>
>> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
>> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
>> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
>> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
>> http://e-democracy.org/donate
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>
>
> Roy Darke
> New Marston, Oxford
> About/contact Roy Darke: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roydarke
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4oJqmL3WrCLVkWTpSvho21
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>

Nigel Gibson
Lye Valley, Oxford
About/contact Nigel Gibson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nigelgibson

None

Rest of post

Looking at the comments in Roy Darke's entry, makes me wonder how Northway
would
have fared with the Link Road plans if the residents had had the
where-with-all to uncover
"who misled who for years!", for we were certainly misled! also, who
agreed with who " ON REFLECTION" It is so easy to say that after the
event. Also, it would have led to kinder, more thoughtful relationships
between councils and residents if, someone, somewhere, was man enough to
admit it was "Time to look again at permitted development rights which allow
commercial bodies to dig up roads etc., with impunity"

Well done Headington residents!! I wish your problem had occurred a year or
two ago, it would have encouraged the Northway residents to realise how
people will ride roughshod over everyone to get what they want "done and
dusted", before anyone realises that they are not working within the law.
i.e. requesting permission to cause havoc, as us mere mortals are required
to do! Then we might also have seen our green space filled in and our
trees, bushes and grass replaced, making us a compact peaceful little unit
again, instead of opening us up to the busy traffic, pedestrians and cycles
[and whatever else is allowed through eventually from the busy ring road and
nearly 900 houses, not to mention old Barton.

This is not a slight against Barton, we would feel the same whoever was
involved.
Certain persons need to think about how it would feel to suddenly have the
land around them ploughed up and ANY sort of traffic passing within yards of
their front door.
And before we hear the usual comments about that, we know it goes past forum
members houses in Old Headington.

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: roy darke
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:43 PM
To: <email obscured>
Cc: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption

As I have said before Vitalenergi staff at the December Liaison meeting with
residents recounted that they have implemented several similar pipeline
schemes elsewhere in England. If I recall correctly they mentioned
Nottingham and Ipswich (among others). I guess they have assumed that they
(and others including LPAs) are a public utility rather than a commercial
firm with its main interest in its shareholders (similar comments apply to
water, gas, phone and electricity companies). Vitalenergi may have misled
other LPAs for 10 years. Andy always thought they should have been captured
within the DC system and so did OCC planners after reflection.

Time to look again at 'permitted development rights' which allows commercial
bodies to dig up roads etc. with impunity. Of course, the current
government will not go there, for obvious reasons.

Roy Darke

Sent from my iPad

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>
> Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable
> result of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated.
> Did the parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively
> disruptive project like this could go ahead without extensive
> consultation?
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
> £14.8m hospital pipeline declared a "disaster" after application is made
> invalid
>
> Sophie Mogridge, Reporter covering Headington & Marston / 3 minutes ago /
> News
>
>
> PLANS for a controversial heating pipe in Headington have been declared
> "invalid" by Oxford City Council.
>
> The application for the project - which would connect the John Radcliffe
> and Churchill Hospitals - has now been suspended over confusion as to
> whether Oxfordshire County Council own the affected land.
>
> Patsy Dell, head of planning and regulatory services for the council,
> said: "The retrospective planning application to install an energy pipe
> between Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals has been declared invalid.
>
> "This is because the necessary notifications relating to the ownership of
> the land have not been carried out in accordance with the mandatory
> requirements.
>
> "Specifically, it is our understanding that Oxfordshire County Council may
> not own all of the highway land where the pipeline would be installed.
>
> "As a result, the application cannot progress until further information is
> provided or a revised application form has been submitted."
>
> City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson said she believes the process has been a
> "disaster from beginning to end" after Vital Energi were forced to fill in
> trenches they had dug to install the pipes before applying for permission.
>
> She said: "It really is quite something to have ended up in this situation
> and I'm not sure where we go from here,"
>
> "The earliest time we're going to be able to discuss the application
> further is May."
>
> Oxford Mail have been unable to reach Vital Energi for a comment.
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/944nZpRGCLYgNfOnwf8xU
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
> This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>

Roy Darke
New Marston, Oxford
About/contact Roy Darke: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roydarke

None

------------------------
Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4oJqmL3WrCLVkWTpSvho21
New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
Digest: Subject: digest on
Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm

*** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring
(Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
http://e-democracy.org/donate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

From
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14281056.Controversial___14_8m_hospital_pipeline_plans_deemed__invalid__as_council_may_not_own_land/

She said: “We pointed out that the soil below the street surface belongs to
> the owners of the properties on each side of the street, and that the grant
> of a street works licence does not displace the need to get the landowner’s
> permission.

> She said: “If indeed the people affected by the route do own the land,
> Vital Energi will have to inform every single person who lives in the area,
> which perhaps they should have done in the first place.”

Seemingly asking the obvious here, but what if the various landowners
*refuse* to grant permission? Surely it'd therefore be not merely "inform",
but "negotiate" ??

Rest of post

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:

>
> Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable
> result of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated.
> Did the parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively
> disruptive project like this could go ahead without extensive consultation?
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
> £14.8m hospital pipeline declared a "disaster" after application is made
> invalid
>
> Sophie Mogridge, Reporter covering Headington & Marston / 3 minutes ago /
> News
>
>
> PLANS for a controversial heating pipe in Headington have been declared
> "invalid" by Oxford City Council.
>
> The application for the project - which would connect the John Radcliffe
> and Churchill Hospitals - has now been suspended over confusion as to
> whether Oxfordshire County Council own the affected land.
>
> Patsy Dell, head of planning and regulatory services for the council,
> said: "The retrospective planning application to install an energy pipe
> between Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals has been declared invalid.
>
> "This is because the necessary notifications relating to the ownership of
> the land have not been carried out in accordance with the mandatory
> requirements.
>
> "Specifically, it is our understanding that Oxfordshire County Council may
> not own all of the highway land where the pipeline would be installed.
>
> "As a result, the application cannot progress until further information is
> provided or a revised application form has been submitted."
>
> City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson said she believes the process has been a
> "disaster from beginning to end" after Vital Energi were forced to fill in
> trenches they had dug to install the pipes before applying for permission.
>
> She said: "It really is quite something to have ended up in this situation
> and I'm not sure where we go from here,"
>
> "The earliest time we're going to be able to discuss the application
> further is May."
>
> Oxford Mail have been unable to reach Vital Energi for a comment.
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/944nZpRGCLYgNfOnwf8xU
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> "Make This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

Can we infer from this article that the Hospital Trust and County Council
simply believed the assurances given by Vital Energi with respect to the
notion that no planning permission was required? If so, I think we deserve
to know which department in the Trust and the Council took the mistaken
decision to make no further inquiries on this issue.

Jeff Crisp

Tel: 07494028089

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nigel Magnay <<email obscured>>
wrote:

> From
>
>
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14281056.Controversial___14_8m_hospital_pipeline_plans_deemed__invalid__as_council_may_not_own_land/

Rest of post

>
> She said: “We pointed out that the soil below the street surface belongs to
> > the owners of the properties on each side of the street, and that the
> grant
> > of a street works licence does not displace the need to get the
> landowner’s
> > permission.
>
>
>
> > She said: “If indeed the people affected by the route do own the land,
> > Vital Energi will have to inform every single person who lives in the
> area,
> > which perhaps they should have done in the first place.”
>
>
>
> Seemingly asking the obvious here, but what if the various landowners
> *refuse* to grant permission? Surely it'd therefore be not merely "inform",
> but "negotiate" ??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Important article from the Oxford Mail. This disaster is the inevitable
> > result of the highly secretive way in which this project was formulated.
> > Did the parties responsible for it seriously think that a massively
> > disruptive project like this could go ahead without extensive
> consultation?
> >
> > ----------------------------
> >
> >
> > £14.8m hospital pipeline declared a "disaster" after application is made
> > invalid
> >
> > Sophie Mogridge, Reporter covering Headington & Marston / 3 minutes ago /
> > News
> >
> >
> > PLANS for a controversial heating pipe in Headington have been declared
> > "invalid" by Oxford City Council.
> >
> > The application for the project - which would connect the John Radcliffe
> > and Churchill Hospitals - has now been suspended over confusion as to
> > whether Oxfordshire County Council own the affected land.
> >
> > Patsy Dell, head of planning and regulatory services for the council,
> > said: "The retrospective planning application to install an energy pipe
> > between Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals has been declared invalid.
> >
> > "This is because the necessary notifications relating to the ownership of
> > the land have not been carried out in accordance with the mandatory
> > requirements.
> >
> > "Specifically, it is our understanding that Oxfordshire County Council
> may
> > not own all of the highway land where the pipeline would be installed.
> >
> > "As a result, the application cannot progress until further information
> is
> > provided or a revised application form has been submitted."
> >
> > City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson said she believes the process has been a
> > "disaster from beginning to end" after Vital Energi were forced to fill
> in
> > trenches they had dug to install the pipes before applying for
> permission.
> >
> > She said: "It really is quite something to have ended up in this
> situation
> > and I'm not sure where we go from here,"
> >
> > "The earliest time we're going to be able to discuss the application
> > further is May."
> >
> > Oxford Mail have been unable to reach Vital Energi for a comment.
> >
> > Jeff Crisp
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/944nZpRGCLYgNfOnwf8xU
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> > *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> > A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> > amount you
> > choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> > "Make This Recurring
> > (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> > http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> nom Magnay
> Oxford
> About/contact nom Magnay: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nigelmagnay
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/KRSf9hW3S8pXS53EywFev
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
> amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select
> "Make This Recurring
> (Monthly)" to become a sustaining donor today!
> http://e-democracy.org/donate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

As between the parties to the procurement documents, I believe it is Vital
Energi's obligation (and not the Trust's) to obtain whatever permissions are
necessary. That seems reasonable, as a starting point, assuming that bringing
"expertise" to the party is what Vital Energi does as its very business, and it
might be expected to know what's needed. Sue Scane's report for Scrutiny
Committee makes it clear that this is "one of the first" such projects, and if
there have been earlier ones, those may have been on land owned by the relevant
Council or by the party that commissioned the works. Or maybe, no-one thought
to take the point. The Trust probably couldn't have foreseen the problems in
2015, and now the parties (having failed to consult etc etc) are in too deep to
reconsider, and so will doubtless try to press on regardless. It may be,
though, that the Trust should express an independent view at this stage, for
reasons of reputation - it has after all promoted the scheme locally as being
its own project - the Scrutiny Committee paper describes the Trust as a
"promoter".

As to landowner consent if needed: you can either seek a landowner's consent,
or just do it anyway and see if the landowner dares to push back. Maybe there
will be some pushing back - all those people without vehicular access to their
homes and drives for weeks are (if I'm right) being trespassed against; it's
not the same as when one of the utility companies does this.

VE will say that the land is the County Council's land (though this proposition
seems to come as news to the County Council). VE have produced "legal advice"
to support their position, but I suspect the advice letter to be the sort of
letter that solicitors write to "the other side" and that the letter doesn't
reflect what the solicitors actually think. You would not get sight of the
actual advice on this. Putting the very best gloss on things, VE are
exploiting a corridor of uncertainty. You need a street works licence to put
kit in the highway, but as we've seen, it's a syllogism to infer from that,
that if you have got a street works licence, you can do those works. We
suggested going jointly to a QC for a reasoned opinion, but for some reason, VE
didn't want to.

Halft term brings some delights - a marked reduction in traffic, but also the
chance to get along to the County's Performance & Scruitiny Committee as they
consider the pipeline.

Somethings are clear. Officers of the County Council are going to defend what
they have done, except even they can't see there was any reason why they
shouldn't have informed councillors at any point in their two year negotiations
with the Trust and Vital Energi. This means that they are not going to engage
with the arguments put, quite helpfully and courtesously, by the Dickinsons.
As we have seen from the City's view, there is something in this.

The other area is their refusual to see that officers should have seen this as
a 'significant' project - which would have required a 'key' decision to be
taken, which would have forced them (and the Trust) to consult. So, they tried
to defend the position that the series of s50 licences that they approved were
in themselves not significant (as they were only closing 100m of road for 4
weeks) - whereas approving eight of them at the same time didn't make that
significant. We're also led to beleive that their careful scheduling of the
pipeline to avoid the Access to Headington scheme works - was not because they
were significant. The comparison was drawn, unhelpfully, with Thames Water,
who can dig up your street for 4 weeks without notice (except all the
Councillors know that the utilities do actually get in touch with them).

So, I'm pretty sure that the next time someone tries to run a heatpipe between
two major sites through a mile of residential streets, the County will be
ready. Well, fairly sure. Meanwhile, everything has come to a standstill while
the Trust and Vital Energi sort out the stuff they could have sorted out in
2014 or 2015 if they'd have been told to talk to people.

Rest of post

Mike:

This sounds like a really useful meeting. Everyone should remember that we now
all have the legal right to film any council meeting held in public, at county
or city. I'm sure it would be extremely helpful for anyone attending a meeting
like this to video it and then put it on Youtube for everyone to see what
happened, particularly those unable to attend.

I do this regularly with the City Council for anything relating to the Save
Temple Cowley Pools Campaign. If anyone wants more information about the
process, or help putting a video onto Youtube, please email me directly.

Nigel Gibson
Headington

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:19:04 +1300
>
> Halft term brings some delights - a marked reduction in traffic, but also the
chance to get along to the County's Performance & Scruitiny Committee as they
consider the pipeline.
>
> Somethings are clear. Officers of the County Council are going to defend
what they have done, except even they can't see there was any reason why they
shouldn't have informed councillors at any point in their two year negotiations
with the Trust and Vital Energi. This means that they are not going to engage
with the arguments put, quite helpfully and courtesously, by the Dickinsons.
As we have seen from the City's view, there is something in this.
>
> The other area is their refusual to see that officers should have seen this
as a 'significant' project - which would have required a 'key' decision to be
taken, which would have forced them (and the Trust) to consult. So, they tried
to defend the position that the series of s50 licences that they approved were
in themselves not significant (as they were only closing 100m of road for 4
weeks) - whereas approving eight of them at the same time didn't make that
significant. We're also led to beleive that their careful scheduling of the
pipeline to avoid the Access to Headington scheme works - was not because they
were significant. The comparison was drawn, unhelpfully, with Thames Water,
who can dig up your street for 4 weeks without notice (except all the
Councillors know that the utilities do actually get in touch with them).
>
> So, I'm pretty sure that the next time someone tries to run a heatpipe
between two major sites through a mile of residential streets, the County will
be ready. Well, fairly sure. Meanwhile, everything has come to a standstill
while the Trust and Vital Energi sort out the stuff they could have sorted out
in 2014 or 2015 if they'd have been told to talk to people.
>
>
>
>
> Mike Ratcliffe
> Highfield, Headington
> About/contact Mike Ratcliffe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mikeratcliffe
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1jqQgjn0QdGT0hyxSxBc68
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
> *** 2016 - The year to become a sustaining subscriber! ***
> A recurring donation is essentially a subscription. Whatever monthly
amount you
> choose will help sustain E-Democracy throughout the year. Select "Make
This Recurring

Rest of post

An interesting article from the Economist which supports my contention that the
student accommodation planned for London and Latimer roads will do nothing to
provide affordable housing for less prosperous students:

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21693257-digs-are-getting-less-squalid-some-students-are-being-priced-out-flat-out

I remember from the neighbour gatherings that the Trust has pitched that the
new energy link would (1) be green (2) be efficient and (3) be resilient. All
true, no doubt, but what I don't remember is the Trust making much of the
benefits of on-selling energy to external users for its own gain, nor speaking
of extending the scheme along a wider route. This is odd because the Full
Business Case is absolutely peppered with references to exploiting the link for
gain as in "the linking of sites (a solution offered by VE) offers further
commercial benefit to the Trust in that they could potentially offer energy to
consumers both on-site and in the surrounding Oxford area". I think that's
just fine, and all the better if you can park the externality costs on the
neighbours.

But my favourite bit of all comes from a risk-assessment schedule, which
carries this warning: "Due to the nature of the scheme proposed, the Trust has
the opportunity to establish itself as a reference site for other similar
schemes, enhancing the reputation of the Trust in its local and national
communities. The manner in which the scheme is completed will represent a risk
of not achieving this reputational gain." "The scheme, incorporating as it
does the Energy Link, could become a beacon for others....."; "The scheme is
the largest scheme to date to be completed through the Carbon Energy Fund, and
so will garner positive attention for the Trust". Hurrah.

Why building a five-story block on the corner of London and Latimer roads will
do nothing to provide affordable accommodation to students with limited means:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-accommodation-what-driving-spiralling-costs

Thanks Jeff for that very interesting article, but I don't think that residents
of Headington have any influence over the policies that Brookes chooses to
follow for provision of student accommodation.
All we can do is to protest to our councillors and to the Planning Office that
five stories is too high. Demand that they keep it to a maximum of three .
The trouble is that it sets a precedent, As soon as one five-storey building is
put up, it might give other developers ideas. And the potential market value of
all the adjacent land is in danger of going up, because someone could build a
five-storey block there too.

Thanks Julia. While Brookes appears to be mplicated in this unnecessary and
intrusive development, my understanding (and would someone let me know if I
have got it wrong) is that it is spearheaded by a property development company
that is constantly on the hunt for profit-making opportunities, irrespective of
local opinion and the fact that it will only benefit the most affluent
students. Why on earth it has the support of he Labour Party is another matter.
As you suggest, this could be the prelude to a more general land-grab in
Headington.

The development does not have the support of the Labour Party. As I have
pointed out before on this forum, councillors vote as individuals on
planning applications and it is quite common to see Labour, Green and Lib
Dem councillors voting in different ways from their party colleagues on
applications. I happened to be one of several Labour councillors who voted
against the Latimer Road development.

Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
Marston Ward
Oxford City Council

On 05/03/2016 22:12, "Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum on
behalf of Jeff Crisp" <oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org on behalf of
<email obscured>> wrote:

>Thanks Julia. While Brookes appears to be mplicated in this unnecessary
>and intrusive development, my understanding (and would someone let me
>know if I have got it wrong) is that it is spearheaded by a property
>development company that is constantly on the hunt for profit-making
>opportunities, irrespective of local opinion and the fact that it will
>only benefit the most affluent students. Why on earth it has the support
>of he Labour Party is another matter. As you suggest, this could be the
>prelude to a more general land-grab in Headington.
>
>Jeff Crisp
>Headington, Oxford
>About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
>None
>
>
>------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5d2YKQznAbKfTm55lP81dT
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>
>
>*** Pledge Drive - Help finish it! ***
>
> Join 298 members who have donated over $11,700!
>
> We only need 90 new donations to make the $15K US we need to keep your
>forums running through 2016.
>
> Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

Rest of post

"councillors vote as individuals on planning applications"

And therein lies the problem, the job of a councillor is to represent the
interests of the community they represent. Not their own personal agendas or
party political ones. The question should be quite simple., it is ...

What benefit or disadvantages does such a development bring to Headington?

If there is strong evidence that such a development bring more advantages than
disadvantages then it should be approved. However as far as I can see there is
no such evidence. Overwhelmingly the people of Headington are against it and it
brings the significant risk of setting a precedent for the future over
development of the Headington area along with all the problems that causes for
the basic infrastructure such as provision for schools, the loss of amenity
space and pressure on services such as GP services and policing.

Quite frankly I am sick and tired of both Oxford City and County councils
putting their own agendas before the interests of the people whom they claim to
represent.

This response begs the question who voted for it and why!!

Peter West
On 5 Mar 2016, at 22:44, Mary Clarkson <<email obscured>> wrote:

The development does not have the support of the Labour Party. As I have
pointed out before on this forum, councillors vote as individuals on
planning applications and it is quite common to see Labour, Green and Lib
Dem councillors voting in different ways from their party colleagues on
applications. I happened to be one of several Labour councillors who voted
against the Latimer Road development.

Mary Clarkson (Cllr)
Marston Ward
Oxford City Council

On 05/03/2016 22:12, "Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum on
behalf of Jeff Crisp" <oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org on behalf of

Rest of post

Darren, below, and Alan Ludlow (starting a new thread under the title “Latimer
Rd” so I will continue here so as not to split things up) express a commonly
held misconception about the development control process, and about Mary’s
comment quoted below.

The issue that Mary’s post perhaps did not make clear is that development
control is a non-political process. It is a quasi-judicial process where
decisions *happen* to be made by the same people as you elect to organise your
bin collections :)

Legally the only question that really has to be answered in respect of any
individual proposal is whether it complies with planning policy, both that set
locally every few years with consultation from the public, and national
planning guidance. So, there is a matter of interpretation, for sure, just as
three Supreme Court Justices could vote different ways on a judicial decision,
because they interpret the law and precedent slightly differently.

Whilst the local planning policy system is usually long and drawn out and quite
opaque, this is the point at which councillors as *political representatives*
and those they represent during the tortuously long consultation process, get
to try and second guess what people might want to put where and whether to
allow it. And, of course, as we have seen from the offices to residential rule,
central government can still create policy that might over-rule existing local
planning policy.

It feels unfair, I agree. But there is a pretty definite limit on what part
“local opinion” can play in a development control context - unless you can make
the cast iron case that the proposal conflicts with policy, and that that
conflict is sufficient to deny a landowner the right to do what they wish with
their own property (which is a core principle of planning law and one I am sure
people would be upset if it was changed when they think about it) or to set
conditions on it.

But development would grind to a halt, or, potentially, become “anything goes”
if that planning process was significantly different. People wanting to invest
in developing, whether that be the home they buy and want to expand, or halls
of residence, or out of town supermarkets, ought to have some idea up front
about what the potential for that property is. And that it what planning policy
is supposed to do. And that is the point at which representatives of the people
have some discretion to represent their constituents rather than make a legal
decision based on existing “law” in the form of policy.

Jock

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 22:55, Darren Grant <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> "councillors vote as individuals on planning applications"
>
> And therein lies the problem, the job of a councillor is to represent the
interests of the community they represent. Not their own personal agendas or
party political ones. The question should be quite simple., it is ...
>
> What benefit or disadvantages does such a development bring to Headington?
>
> If there is strong evidence that such a development bring more advantages
than disadvantages then it should be approved. However as far as I can see
there is no such evidence. Overwhelmingly the people of Headington are against
it and it brings the significant risk of setting a precedent for the future
over development of the Headington area along with all the problems that causes
for the basic infrastructure such as provision for schools, the loss of amenity
space and pressure on services such as GP services and policing.
>
> Quite frankly I am sick and tired of both Oxford City and County councils
putting their own agendas before the interests of the people whom they claim to
represent.
>
> Darren Grant
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Darren Grant: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/darrengrant
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1PakDoOw6gMckZmd8IHEs7
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>
>
> *** Pledge Drive - Help finish it! ***
>
> Join 298 members who have donated over $11,700!
>
> We only need 90 new donations to make the $15K US we need to keep your forums
running through 2016.

Rest of post

Yesterday afternoon the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust issued
an important statement about the heat pipe:
http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/news/article.aspx?id=440

It says that Vital Energi now aim to submit a planning application in time for
consideration at the East Area Planning Committee meeting in June (so nothing
much is going to happen this summer).

This planning application will propose for consideration an alternative route
for the pipe as well as the original one. In both plans the pipe travels down
Latimer Road, but after that Plan A takes it down to Old Road via Stapleton
Road as before, but Plan B takes it via the south end of Lime Walk (after a
left turn into All Saints Road). The Trust gives the reasoning behind this new
proposal in the above link.

Other utilities have already decorated Lime Walk with multi-coloured paint, so
people guessed that the pipe might be coming their way. Anyone interested in
what they have under their pavements can find out what all the colours mean
here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25915468

I'll offer no comment on whether Lime Walk or Stapleton Road is the best route,
but it does underline the point we've made that if only OUH Trust or the County
Council had run this as an open consultation, then the best decision could have
been made before anyone started.

If Lime Walk is decided to be the best route, it's worth noting that according
to their original plan they should have just finished digging up Stapleton Rd
about now, and would be turning into Old Road to dig that up. Of course, we
all got to guess what they had in mind as they started mapping the utilities
*before* publicly announcing they were thinking about this.

Mike

(NB - there are 147 posts in this discussion, you can see the order they came
in and which respond to which - can we please keep to this structure rather
than send emails with random titles to the forum?)

Why did the Trust cancel the last residents liaison meeting? The latest
press release goes to great lengths to confirm a 'commitment to engage with
residents' & yet they miss out on a pre-arranged opportunity to do just
that at an important stage of planning a revised work programme. The new
proposal to use Lime Walk will, no doubt, generate another whole raft of
concerns & queries which might have been debated & thrashed out at that
meeting. As someone else has noted (in the tower block refurbishment) the
definition of consultation has been blurred - in a planning context - to
mean, 'let's tell them what we are going to do'. Major planning applicants
are expected to follow the policy directive below - extracted from City
Council 'Statement Of Community Involvement' (SCI). It could be argued
the new plans have not fulfilled SCI obligations.
Harry Edwards

*If the scheme falls within the definition of a ‘major’ application12 then
applicants are strongly encouraged to contact those who live, work and/or
undertake other activities in the surrounding area who may be affected by
the proposals, to inform them of their plans and to identify/discuss any
potential issues and opportunities13 so that the submitted proposal
acknowledges and addresses community concerns, even if it cannot fully
resolve them. Consultation at this stage should be appropriate and
proportionate, and will normally include helping the community and
non-planning experts to visualise what the development will look like and
to understand the impacts on the area14 . Whilst there is no legal
obligation for applicants to undertake consultation at the preapplication
stage, failure to consult properly is likely to lead to objections being
made by interested parties (such as neighbouring residents) later on in the
process which could be material to the determination of a planning
application. Pre-application consultation may be made a formal requirement
via a Planning Performance Agreement15 where relevant. A statement setting
out how consultation has been carried out and any changes made to the
proposals as a result, is encouraged to be submitted with the planning
application, and should be easy for the community to find so that they can
easily see the feedback. Developers are also encouraged to feedback
directly to the community via a second round of pre-application engagement,
before submitting the application to the Council, to explain any changes to
the proposal and how concerns have been addressed. We also encourage
applicants to let the local ward councillors know about their proposals.
The City Council’s Code of Practice for councillors on planning
applications advises that 12 At the time of writing, major applications are
defined by Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure (England) Order 2015. 13 We have produced help sheets
on the Council website which set out examples of good practice in
pre-application engagement 14 We have produced a help sheet that set out
examples of visualisation tools that can help community engagement. 15 A
planning performance agreement sets timescales for actions by the City
Council and applicants at the pre-application and application stage. (See
the Planning Practice Guidance for further information.) Statement of
Community Involvement in Planning 17 councillors attending public meetings
should take great care to maintain their impartial role, listen to all the
points of view expressed by the speakers and public, and not state a
conclusive decision on any pre-application proposals or submitted planning
applications. Nonetheless we would encourage applicants on major schemes to
make local councillors aware of their proposals so that they can help to
bring it to the attention of their constituents at the earliest stages.
Similarly, applicants are encouraged to contact local representative groups
who may be able to help raise awareness and explain the proposals to the
community, and may also be able to provide representative views from a
community perspective and provide local insight. *

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Mike Ratcliffe <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

An interesting Guardian article on the construction of luxury student
accommodation in cities where other residents cannot find affordable housing.
Very pertinent to that monstrous London and Latimer Road development!
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/29/en-suite-education-the-rise-of-luxury-student-housing

So - the most expensive course fees in Europe, Luxury accomodation costing
up to £13,000 pa - and the growth is being fuelled by... EU students
flocking over here (UK applicants down 0.3%, EU applicants up 6% up this
cycle).

Given many EU countries have good education systems, don't have course fees
and much cheaper housing - something doesn't add up.

Could it possibly be foreign students might not ever actually ever repay
their UK loans once they've no longer domiciled here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8553427/EU-students-get-a-better-deal-at-British-universities.html

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:

> An interesting Guardian article on the construction of luxury student
> accommodation in cities where other residents cannot find affordable
> housing. Very pertinent to that monstrous London and Latimer Road
> development!
>
>
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/29/en-suite-education-the-rise-of-luxury-student-housing

Rest of post

I have no information about repayment of student loans. But I know that EU
students are drawn to UK universities because our system is efficient, and they
can complete their degree in three or four years, rather than taking longer.
Also students get more personal attention in British universities than they do
in some other EU countries. This makes them very attractive. And most of the
students are not living in luxury accommodation.
Flora Alexander.

> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:19:06 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> From: <email obscured>
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> So - the most expensive course fees in Europe, Luxury accomodation costing
> up to £13,000 pa - and the growth is being fuelled by... EU students
> flocking over here (UK applicants down 0.3%, EU applicants up 6% up this
> cycle).
>
> Given many EU countries have good education systems, don't have course fees
> and much cheaper housing - something doesn't add up.
>
> Could it possibly be foreign students might not ever actually ever repay
> their UK loans once they've no longer domiciled here?
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8553427/EU-students-get-a-better-deal-at-British-universities.html
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > An interesting Guardian article on the construction of luxury student
> > accommodation in cities where other residents cannot find affordable
> > housing. Very pertinent to that monstrous London and Latimer Road
> > development!
> >
> >
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/29/en-suite-education-the-rise-of-luxury-student-housing
> >
> > Jeff Crisp
> > Headington, Oxford
> > About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
> >
> >
> > None
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Reply: Reply-All or visit
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6PYgc0bXX4qEDuVLIhnJKE
> > New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Digest: Subject: digest on
> > Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *** Pledge Drive - Help finish it! ***
> >
> > Join 298 members who have donated over $11,700!
> >
> > We only need 90 new donations to make the $15K US we need to keep your
> > forums running through 2016.
> >
> > Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> nom Magnay
> Oxford
> About/contact nom Magnay: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nigelmagnay
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6bs3jLqN2aaONZMGUcI3ak
> New Topic: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm
>
>
>
>
> *** Pledge Drive - Help finish it! ***
>
> Join 298 members who have donated over $11,700!
>
> We only need 90 new donations to make the $15K US we need to keep your
forums running through 2016.

Rest of post

Back to the disruption theme...

It looks like contractors are stripping out the house on the corner of Latimer
rd. How are the developers going to be keeping people in touch with the
construction works on this corner? They're going to be moving lots of stuff on
and off the site, and it would be handy to know how they're handling that. Is
there a webpage or an email list?

Good news (kind of) as there's silence on the heatpipe and the Access to
Headington decision has been put back; they might get this built before the
roads get dug up...

latimer.JPG 79.87kb

So now there is an application for the forthcoming London - Latimer Road
student block to be used by non-students outside of term time:

http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&;keyVal=O6AMTYMFG5100

Why on earth was this not included in the original application for planning
permission?

Re. the construction of student accommodation on the London-Latimer Road, can
we get a guarantee from the developer and the local authorities with respect to
the parking of builders' vans and lorries?

This morning, the Latimer Road pavement was blocked by a pick-up (OY56HWX) and
a van (SZ7LJG) used by builders working on the property next door to Dorset
House. Totally inconsiderate to pedestrians!

Sent from Outlook Mobile

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:34 AM -0700, "Jeff Crisp" <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

Very noisy construction work going on at 7.30 this morning at the new student
accommodation on London and Latimer roads. Do they have permission to start so
early?

The site manager confirmed with me this morning that the planning permission
condition permits work from 7am to 6pm. Haven't been able to check this yet
online as meeting'd out today.

Hours of operation are normally dealt with by other legislation (mainly
environmental health) so out of curiosity I have looked and if I have seen the
right decision notice (15/00858/FUL-dated 15th April 2016) there is no such
condition. Of course he may be referring to some other form of permission, not
planning. Or then again..........

Andrew

Rest of post

OK. I've had a further look at this, Jeff and Andrew (and have received
complaints about noise disturbance from Latimer Grange).

It appears that some documents have been sent to the planners to discharge some
conditions relating to the planning permission, and I have just been looking at
these on the council's planning website.

You can see these under related documents under the following Planning ref:
15/00858/CND | Details submitted in compliance with conditions 3 (Samples), 4a
(Tree Removal), 4b (Operational Details), 5 (Arb Watching Brief), 6
(underground services), 7 (Hard standing - trees), 13 (CONSTRUCTION TRAVEL
PLAN), 15 (Bin and bike stores), 18 (Bio-diversity enhancement), 19 (Drainage)
and 20 (Screening) of planning permission 15/00858/FUL. | 36 London Road
Headington Oxford Oxfordshire OX3 7PA

Buried within those supporting documents is a Construction Environment
Management Plan in two parts and hopefully I have attached part 1 to this post.

Within part 1 you will see the following:

Noise
Construction noise emissions have been identified by Oxford Council as a
potential source of annoyance to the local population.

4.17
Working Hours. The works will be restricted to the core working hours of
0 7 . 3 0 h r s . to 18:00 hrs Monday to Friday, with 08.00hrs-13.00hrs on
Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Bank holidays without prior written
permission from Oxford Council.

The discharge of the above conditions is I think still in process. It is
delegated to an officer and there is no neighbourhood consultation associated
with /CNDs which is why it has crept in under the radar.

My recollection was that this would be an issue on which stakeholders would be
consulted. I don't believe that has happened.

I have contacted the applicant and the planning officer about this and will
keep you posted.

15_00858_CND-CONSTRUCTION_METHODOLOGY_AND_ENVIRONMENTAL_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_PART_1-1729444.pdf 5.00mb

Strange marks have appeared on the road and pavements of Latimer Road between
Latimer Grange and London Road. Presumably nothing to do with the heat pipe, as
planning permission has not yet been granted. Or do Vital Energi know something
that we don't know?

Well done Ruth for digging out the Winvic Environmental Management Plan!

To save everyone reading all 122 pages, here are some key bits:
(page 11, para 3.2) "An Environmental Co-ordinator (including Community
Liaison) will be appointed by Winvic Construction Limited. The Environmental
Co-ordinator will be based on the site and will act as focal point for the
distillation of the contractor’s responsibilities with respect to the
environment and for queries/complaints from the controlling authorities and
general public."
(para 3.3) duties include: "To act as the main point of contact between the
local populace and the project."

(page 25, para 4.8): Nick Lakin is Winvic's Environmental Co-ordinator:
email: Nicklakin_AT_winvic.co.uk.
Tel: 07720971948
[He wrote the Winvic Plan]

In the interests of cycling and pedestrian safety, I want to know if the HGV
contractors for construction and waste-disposal lorries at Beech House adhere
to CLoCS standards for looking after vulnerable road users
(www.clocs.org.uk/standard-for-clocs/) and are FORS-compliant to Silver level
(Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme: www.fors-online.org.uk). I'm asking Mr
Lakin.

Thanks to Ruth Wilkinson's Twitter post, we now know that the markings which
recently appeared on the tarmac at the top of Latimer Road are related to a
potentially disruptive disconnection of energy links in that area. Why can't
the contractors undertaking this work be bothered to inform residents of what
is going on? A few notices fixed to lamp-posts would have been enough. But as
we have seen in recent months, contractors, infrastructure companies and
property developers just don't care about the local community.

FindersKeepers were correctly banned from advertising on a relatively small
reconstruction project hoarding on London/Latimer roads. But now we have
intrusive Frontier Development adverts on the much bigger student housing
project just across the road. Did they require planning permission for this
(and if not, why not)? Did they even think of consulting local residents on the
matter (of course not)? And what does Brookes University (which is centrally
implicated in this dreadful development\ and featured on the adverts) have to
say on the issue? It would be nice to walk to the local shops and bus stop
without being reminded that venture capitalism is taking over Headington.

Builders are allowed to advertise on their hoardings around construction sites
without planning permission, but Frontier were required to inform the city
council: you could check that they have done this. But "this consent is limited
to land being developed for commercial, industrial or business use, and is not
available for any residential development". Doesn't student housing count as
residential?

I am uploading a photograph of one of the signs in case people haven't seen
them.

Here are the rules about advertisements on such sites, copied & pasted from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11499/326679.pdf:

Class 8: advertisements on hoardings around temporary construction sites

Class 8 permits the display, for three years only, of poster-hoardings which
are being used to screen building or construction sites while the work is being
carried out on site. The purpose of this consent is to bring about some
environmental benefit on building sites, by enabling screening (and perhaps
also temporary landscaping) of the site to take place, thus providing the
advertisers with some financial incentive for this purpose. But the benefit of
Class 8 is not available in any National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, Conservation Area, the Broads, or Area of Special Control of
Advertisements. Outside those designated and defined areas, this consent is
limited to land being developed for commercial, industrial or business use, and
is not available for any residential development.

Advertisements permitted by Class 8 must not:

be displayed more than three months before the date on which the
building or construction works actually start;

be more than 38 square metres in area

be more than 4.6 metres above ground level

be displayed for more than three years.

Additionally, the advertiser must send written notification to the planning
authority of his intention to display such an advertisement at least 14 days
before the display starts, and provide a copy of the detailed planning
permission for the site.

frontier.jpg 445.76kb

Thinking about it more, though: is this actually an advertisement? It is
stating who is doing the work and for whom, in a rather large way....

Sorry to bang on, but:

1. Will the construction of Beech House be completed by the time the heat-pipe
installation hits the top end of Latimer Road? If not, how will all of
constriction materials required for a five-story building be delivered to the
site?

2. Can the powers-that-be guarantee that all of the residents affected by the
heat-pipe installation will be able to park their cars within easy walking
distance? What provisions have been made for residents with limited mobility?

3. Has anyone worked out the likely length (in both time and distance) of the
traffic jams that will occur when London road is reduced to a single and
alternating lane? What's to stop minor roads becoming rat-runs?

4. Is the reputed cost of the heat-pipe installation (£14 million, without the
hidden costs of disruption to be borne by residents and passers-by a 'fixed
price deal' with Vitalenergi? Or (as is usually the case with large
infrastructure projects) will the installation come in above budget and outside
the purported timeframe?

5. Will anyone apologize if budget and timeframe targets are not met and the
disruption is much worse than we have been told it will be?

6. Forget the last one. It was a rhetorical question.

People may be interested in a briefing being given to Councillors on the East
Area Planning Committee, next Monday, 5th August, 4.30pm in the Long Room in
the Town Hall. You can find info on the following link. More detailed info
should be available this coming week:
http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=369&;MId=4227

This meeting is a council meeting held in public, and is for councillors to
find out info if they so wish. Sometimes questions from the public are allowed,
but don't assume so. Jeff, I suggest you ask a sympathetic councillor to ask
your questions for you just in case...

I'm making an assumption that the related planning application will be heard at
the East Area Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday 7th - waiting on the
agenda to be published at the moment. And that will be another opportunity for
people to put their views - although the standard 3 minutes may not be enough
time, and there is no guarantee anyone will bother ensuring answers are
obtained, or concerns addressed.

Nigel Gibson
Headington, Oxford

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:46:25 +1200
>
> Sorry to bang on, but:
>
> 1. Will the construction of Beech House be completed by the time the
heat-pipe installation hits the top end of Latimer Road? If not, how will all
of constriction materials required for a five-story building be delivered to
the site?
>
> 2. Can the powers-that-be guarantee that all of the residents affected by the
heat-pipe installation will be able to park their cars within easy walking
distance? What provisions have been made for residents with limited mobility?
>
> 3. Has anyone worked out the likely length (in both time and distance) of the
traffic jams that will occur when London road is reduced to a single and
alternating lane? What's to stop minor roads becoming rat-runs?
>
> 4. Is the reputed cost of the heat-pipe installation (£14 million, without
the hidden costs of disruption to be borne by residents and passers-by a 'fixed
price deal' with Vitalenergi? Or (as is usually the case with large
infrastructure projects) will the installation come in above budget and outside
the purported timeframe?
>
> 5. Will anyone apologize if budget and timeframe targets are not met and the
disruption is much worse than we have been told it will be?
>
> 6. Forget the last one. It was a rhetorical question.
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4jUuW769zUJOVtA2eUiIUq

Rest of post

Drinks on me if the planning application is not nodded through.

The fact that digging started before the issues of planning permission and
community consultation were even considered tells us all we need to know.

I volunteer to be that sympathetic councillor, Nigel!

Jeff - I'll have a stab at answering your questions. Any answers that I give
are the facts as I know them, and I shall attend the Planning Committee with an
open mind till I have heard all the arguments.

1. Will the construction of Beech House be completed by the time the heat-pipe
installation hits the top end of Latimer Road? If not, how will all of
construction materials required for a five-story building be delivered to the
site?

No it won't. The construction materials will be delivered via Latimer Road and
the managers of the two schemes would work together re access if the energy
pipe application gets planning consent. The only problematic issue is whether
the jib of the crane to be used at Beech House will need to be assembled in
Latimer Road itself because there may not be enough space on site to do this -
if so, this will be done on a Saturday morning, date not yet set but early
November has been mentioned as a possibility. I am spending many of my waking
moments trying to co-ordinate works between the above projects and the Access
to Headington scheme for which no schedule of works has been published yet by
the County Council. For the period of the energy pipe works when access to the
Beech House site will be unavailable, Beech House construction materials will
be delivered to site in advance.

2. Can the powers-that-be guarantee that all of the residents affected by the
heat-pipe installation will be able to park their cars within easy walking
distance? What provisions have been made for residents with limited mobility?

This is all in the construction traffic management plan (CTMP) and is a live
document so improvements can still be made

3. Has anyone worked out the likely length (in both time and distance) of the
traffic jams that will occur when London road is reduced to a single and
alternating lane? What's to stop minor roads becoming rat-runs?

Presumably you have included this in your comments on the planning application?
This is a matter for the County as the Highways Authority which is responsible
for traffic management during works in affected roads and neighbouring roads.
The construction traffic management plan is agreed jointly by the applicant and
the County Council's networks team. As you will have seen, the County Council
has requested changes to the CTMP as part of its comments as statutory
consultee (see related documents on the City's planning website)

4. Is the reputed cost of the heat-pipe installation (£14 million, without the
hidden costs of disruption to be borne by residents and passers-by a 'fixed
price deal' with Vitalenergi? Or (as is usually the case with large
infrastructure projects) will the installation come in above budget and outside
the purported timeframe?

Any suggestion that the project won't be completed to timeframe is speculation.
Information on certain aspects of the project has not been made available
because of commercial confidentiality and some of that is issues around costs.
The revised application employs an extra dig team to get the project completed
more quickly, there would be three teams working at the same time (see CTMP)

5. Will anyone apologize if budget and timeframe targets are not met and the
disruption is much worse than we have been told it will be?

Again, speculation. If I asked for an apology to be given for everything that
might go wrong before things happened, I'd be even busier than I am now!

I have tried to post up links to all relevant documents on the HeadingtonLib
Dems website but happy to send these to people individually by email if
required. The CTMP is available in hard copy for people to look at in Bury
Knowle Library (ask at the desk). I spent yesterday reading through and
analysing all the neighbourhood comments and I am surprised there weren't more.
As Nigel says, the legal briefing I requested from the City Council is
happening on Monday 5th at 4:30 following the earlier meeting at 2:00 at County
Hall where county councillors will be deliberating on whether a licence to open
up the highways should be granted to Vital Energi as a statutory undertaker.

I hope this is helpful. There are complex issues here.

Thanks Ruth - I'm not sure that even the two sessions you mention will be
enough to brief councillors fully on the issues.
And to clarify (without I hope subverting the thread) the position with regard
to councillors approaching planning meetings with an 'open mind'. The law
changed with the Localism Act - previously councillors had to be neutral on
issues. Now the Localism Act encourages councillors to be involved in
campaigns, and have views on issues affecting their voters and area.
They can express opinions, and take those opinions into planning meetings,
provided they are prepared to change their view if the evidence presented in
the meeting is sufficiently compelling. There is thus no excuse for councillors
to say that they can't take a view or have an opinion because they have to have
an 'open mind'. I look forward to even more empathy, understanding and support
(and sympathy!) from all our councillors in future.
Nigel GibsonHeadington
> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 01:37:33 +1200
>
> I volunteer to be that sympathetic councillor, Nigel!
>
> Jeff - I'll have a stab at answering your questions. Any answers that I give
are the facts as I know them, and I shall attend the Planning Committee with an
open mind till I have heard all the arguments.
>
> 1. Will the construction of Beech House be completed by the time the
heat-pipe
> installation hits the top end of Latimer Road? If not, how will all of
> construction materials required for a five-story building be delivered to the
> site?
>
> No it won't. The construction materials will be delivered via Latimer Road
and the managers of the two schemes would work together re access if the energy
pipe application gets planning consent. The only problematic issue is whether
the jib of the crane to be used at Beech House will need to be assembled in
Latimer Road itself because there may not be enough space on site to do this -
if so, this will be done on a Saturday morning, date not yet set but early
November has been mentioned as a possibility. I am spending many of my waking
moments trying to co-ordinate works between the above projects and the Access
to Headington scheme for which no schedule of works has been published yet by
the County Council. For the period of the energy pipe works when access to the
Beech House site will be unavailable, Beech House construction materials will
be delivered to site in advance.
>
> 2. Can the powers-that-be guarantee that all of the residents affected by the
> heat-pipe installation will be able to park their cars within easy walking
> distance? What provisions have been made for residents with limited mobility?
>
> This is all in the construction traffic management plan (CTMP) and is a live
document so improvements can still be made
>
> 3. Has anyone worked out the likely length (in both time and distance) of the
> traffic jams that will occur when London road is reduced to a single and
> alternating lane? What's to stop minor roads becoming rat-runs?
>
> Presumably you have included this in your comments on the planning
application? This is a matter for the County as the Highways Authority which is
responsible for traffic management during works in affected roads and
neighbouring roads. The construction traffic management plan is agreed jointly
by the applicant and the County Council's networks team. As you will have seen,
the County Council has requested changes to the CTMP as part of its comments as
statutory consultee (see related documents on the City's planning website)
>
> 4. Is the reputed cost of the heat-pipe installation (£14 million, without
the
> hidden costs of disruption to be borne by residents and passers-by a 'fixed
> price deal' with Vitalenergi? Or (as is usually the case with large
> infrastructure projects) will the installation come in above budget and
outside
> the purported timeframe?
>
> Any suggestion that the project won't be completed to timeframe is
speculation. Information on certain aspects of the project has not been made
available because of commercial confidentiality and some of that is issues
around costs. The revised application employs an extra dig team to get the
project completed more quickly, there would be three teams working at the same
time (see CTMP)
>
> 5. Will anyone apologize if budget and timeframe targets are not met and the
> disruption is much worse than we have been told it will be?
>
> Again, speculation. If I asked for an apology to be given for everything that
might go wrong before things happened, I'd be even busier than I am now!
>
> I have tried to post up links to all relevant documents on the HeadingtonLib
Dems website but happy to send these to people individually by email if
required. The CTMP is available in hard copy for people to look at in Bury
Knowle Library (ask at the desk). I spent yesterday reading through and
analysing all the neighbourhood comments and I am surprised there weren't more.
As Nigel says, the legal briefing I requested from the City Council is
happening on Monday 5th at 4:30 following the earlier meeting at 2:00 at County
Hall where county councillors will be deliberating on whether a licence to open
up the highways should be granted to Vital Energi as a statutory undertaker.
>
> I hope this is helpful. There are complex issues here.
>
>
>
> Ruth Wilkinson
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Ruth Wilkinson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6Oc6J3Ucptgv7eH9ZhM9Xl

Rest of post

The officer's report on the energy pipe application is now available on the
City Council's website at:
http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&;MId=4059&;Ver=4
Click on agenda item 3 for the report

Dear Forum members,

I started this thread in November last year, having just moved into Latimer
Road without any forewarning of the chaos to come as a result of the impending
and somewhat secretive heat pipe installation project.

Soon afterwards,it became quite clear that there had been no serious
consultation with local residents with respect to this disruptive initiative,
that installation was already under way at the JR end of the pipeline, and that
illegal digging had started at very short notice in All Saints Road (resulting
in a hole in the ground that subsequently had to be filled in within less than
48 hours).

None of the organizations associated with this project (primarily Vital Energi,
the Hospital Trust and the Council) emerge from this sequence of events with
any credit, and the approval of the plan later this week (with certain limited
conditions) seems to be a foregone conclusion.

As a completely non-affiliated voter, I would like to acknowledge the very
active and constructive role that the local Lib Dems have played in relation to
this process, especially when compared to the other political parties (my
e-mail on this issue to the MP for Oxford East, for example, has gone
unanswered for several months).

If this project does go ahead (which it seems certain to do) I very much hope
that the conditions attached to the planning application and approval will
minimize the disruption that it causes. But even if they have that effect, I
suspect that the many people affected by this project will be left with a very
sour taste in their mouths as a result of the way it has been mismanaged.

With best regards to all.

Rest of post

While I would always argue that if we must have institutions of coercion govern
aspects of our lives, they should be run by Liberal Democrats, I am somewhat
surprised by your comment about Andrew Smith.

Even though he knows only too well of my party affiliations, he has always been
prompt to reply and usually better than a stock answer.

Though I would not write to an MP about a planning issue, I would have expected
him to reply to say it was not really his place to intervene in any planning
aspects of the issue (the willingness of the local agents of the National
Health Service to communicate would legitimately be of concern to an MP
though).

Even when I was a councillor he generally would copy me in, a Lib Dem, on
correspondence to people in my ward if it related to council rather than
parliamentary competencies.

Jock

> On 5 Sep 2016, at 01:16, Jeff Crisp <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Forum members,
>
> I started this thread in November last year, having just moved into Latimer
Road without any forewarning of the chaos to come as a result of the impending
and somewhat secretive heat pipe installation project.
>
> Soon afterwards,it became quite clear that there had been no serious
consultation with local residents with respect to this disruptive initiative,
that installation was already under way at the JR end of the pipeline, and that
illegal digging had started at very short notice in All Saints Road (resulting
in a hole in the ground that subsequently had to be filled in within less than
48 hours).
>
> None of the organizations associated with this project (primarily Vital
Energi, the Hospital Trust and the Council) emerge from this sequence of events
with any credit, and the approval of the plan later this week (with certain
limited conditions) seems to be a foregone conclusion.
>
> As a completely non-affiliated voter, I would like to acknowledge the very
active and constructive role that the local Lib Dems have played in relation to
this process, especially when compared to the other political parties (my
e-mail on this issue to the MP for Oxford East, for example, has gone
unanswered for several months).
>
> If this project does go ahead (which it seems certain to do) I very much hope
that the conditions attached to the planning application and approval will
minimize the disruption that it causes. But even if they have that effect, I
suspect that the many people affected by this project will be left with a very
sour taste in their mouths as a result of the way it has been mismanaged.
>
> With best regards to all.
>
>
>
>
> Jeff Crisp
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Jeff Crisp: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jeffcrisp
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4Sn2roo1ZZRc75Qz1NzHNP

Rest of post

Appreciate Jeff's comments.

The situation currently is that the energy pipe works cannot proceed until
consent has been given by the County Council as local highways authority for
Vital Energi to break open the highway surface (this takes the form of street
licences) and planning consent has been granted by the City Council as the
planning authority.

A small but informed group of residents and councillors attended the County's
Planning and Regulations Committee meeting yesterday, raised issues that still
need resolving, and fought for improvements to conditions. There was a proposal
to defer the decision until after planning consent was given and to allow time
for further discussion of other issues to take place but that was voted down
7-5. On the second vote along the lines of the officer recommendation (with one
slight change to one condition which is covered in the Construction Traffic
Management Plan already) councillors voted 9-0 to permit the licences with
several abstentions.

Following that meeting, the small but informed group re-assembled at the Town
Hall to ask questions of City Council officers and Vital Energi about legal
issues. Vital Energi gave a presentation in which for the first time slides
were presented showing workings for costs and energy efficiency that are not
included in the documentation submitted with the application on the planning
website, but explained they cannot display this more widely as it is
commercially sensitive.

The issue of whether to grant planning consent will be discussed by East Area
Planning Committee at the Town Hall on Wednesday 7th at 18:00 and is the first
item on the agenda. Members of the public speaking for or against need to fill
in a speaker's form ahead of the start of the meeting. The Chair has discretion
to allow longer speaking time but it is likely not to exceed 10 minutes in
total for all speakers put together.

Any decision taken by East Area Planning Committee is subject to a call-in
period of 48 weekday hours following publication of the minutes. If the
decision is not called in, it will stand.

If the application is agreed subject to a long list of conditions and
informatives, works could start as early as three weeks after the decision
notice is sent out by the planning authority. (required lead-in time for the
County Council to publicise street works/TTROs)

However there is another external factor. We have been advised that Access to
Headington works will start in Roosevelt Drive mid October (date to be
confirmed) so the timing and sequence of energy pipe works may be affected by
this. The County Council is giving priority to its own project with regard to
road closures so there are lots of meetings going on to work out the logistics
of it all.

My personal view is that I am appalled at such late scheduling of Access to
Headington works. There appears to be no plan in place yet about which phases
of work will be done in what order after Roosevelt Drive, and Roz Smith and I
have chased and chased for details. Words like "tail' "wagging" and "dog"
spring to mind wrt the County Council and its contractor.

Thanks to Ruth for the summary of the debacle so far.
I am extremely concerned that the costs/energy efficiency figures were
considered commercially sensitive and therefore not provided in public.
However, the meeting yesterday afternoon was 'a meeting held in public', and
therefore all that information should now be made available to whoever wants to
see it.
@Ruth - are you able to get this information published on the planning website?
Do you know if it will be presented at tomorrow's planning meeting?
Thanks
Nigel GibsonHeadington

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:18:29 +1200
>
> Appreciate Jeff's comments.
>
> The situation currently is that the energy pipe works cannot proceed until
consent has been given by the County Council as local highways authority for
Vital Energi to break open the highway surface (this takes the form of street
licences) and planning consent has been granted by the City Council as the
planning authority.
>
> A small but informed group of residents and councillors attended the County's
Planning and Regulations Committee meeting yesterday, raised issues that still
need resolving, and fought for improvements to conditions. There was a proposal
to defer the decision until after planning consent was given and to allow time
for further discussion of other issues to take place but that was voted down
7-5. On the second vote along the lines of the officer recommendation (with one
slight change to one condition which is covered in the Construction Traffic
Management Plan already) councillors voted 9-0 to permit the licences with
several abstentions.
>
> Following that meeting, the small but informed group re-assembled at the Town
Hall to ask questions of City Council officers and Vital Energi about legal
issues. Vital Energi gave a presentation in which for the first time slides
were presented showing workings for costs and energy efficiency that are not
included in the documentation submitted with the application on the planning
website, but explained they cannot display this more widely as it is
commercially sensitive.
>
> The issue of whether to grant planning consent will be discussed by East Area
Planning Committee at the Town Hall on Wednesday 7th at 18:00 and is the first
item on the agenda. Members of the public speaking for or against need to fill
in a speaker's form ahead of the start of the meeting. The Chair has discretion
to allow longer speaking time but it is likely not to exceed 10 minutes in
total for all speakers put together.
>
> Any decision taken by East Area Planning Committee is subject to a call-in
period of 48 weekday hours following publication of the minutes. If the
decision is not called in, it will stand.
>
> If the application is agreed subject to a long list of conditions and
informatives, works could start as early as three weeks after the decision
notice is sent out by the planning authority. (required lead-in time for the
County Council to publicise street works/TTROs)
>
> However there is another external factor. We have been advised that Access to
Headington works will start in Roosevelt Drive mid October (date to be
confirmed) so the timing and sequence of energy pipe works may be affected by
this. The County Council is giving priority to its own project with regard to
road closures so there are lots of meetings going on to work out the logistics
of it all.
>
> My personal view is that I am appalled at such late scheduling of Access to
Headington works. There appears to be no plan in place yet about which phases
of work will be done in what order after Roosevelt Drive, and Roz Smith and I
have chased and chased for details. Words like "tail' "wagging" and "dog"
spring to mind wrt the County Council and its contractor.
>
> Ruth Wilkinson
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Ruth Wilkinson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1UkR64gVGKQO2pOIezkui9

Rest of post

As that information has not been provided to the City Council AFAIK, it cannot
be uploaded to the City Council's website. I asked if it could be displayed on
the Trust's website and was told no because it was commercially sensitive. The
slides were displayed only for a short time as part of a longer presentation.

There is no EAPC protocol for applicants to give presentations. I don't know if
VE is prepared to show those slides at tomorrow's meeting if asked. That's a
matter for them.

If you want to request that the slides are made available at the meeting, I'd
suggest you contact Jennifer Thompson in Democratic Services 01865 252275 in
the first instance, Nigel.

The costings have on the planning process. It isn't the councils place to
decide if something is economically viable that is the job of the NHS trust.
The council planning department is simply required to ensure that any plans
submitted meet the national and local policies.

If I owned two houses on a street and wanted to spend £1m digging the road up
so I could run cables and pipes between them I could apply for permission to do
so. As long as I could meet all the required criteria then I could get
permission without having to prove that somehow it would save me money.

The best that can be done is for the Council to put as many restrictions in
place as possible to try and minimise disruption.

If you think that the hospital is wasting its money then that is something to
be taken up with the NHS trust, your MP and Jeremy Hunt. But it seems that the
trust has been given reassurances that it will be cost effective for them.
Perhaps you should follow it up with a freedom of information request when it
is complete to find out what if any savings have been made on energy bills when
it is in use.

If you think it is wrong that just anyone can go digging up the road (who is
not a utility) then really you need to try and get your MP to ask for a change
in the national planning policy so that these things are more difficult to
obtain permission for.

But really the best that can be hoped for now is that the Councils will take
their responsibilities seriously and try and organise things accordingly. Sadly
the incompetence demonstrated by Oxford County Council does not inspire much
confidence that this will happen.

In my opinion it is about time the county and district councils stopped their
bitter infighting in their bid to hold on to power and take the recommendations
of the reports that they commissioned and merge into a unitary council. At
least then we wouldn't have the crazy situation where two councils are involved
in situations like this.

Thanks Ruth. My point is that this information has now been revealed in a
public forum (a council meeting 'held in public'), and should be available to
any member of the public who wishes to see it.
And to pick up on what Darren was saying, it's not that the EAPC will make a
planning judgement based on financial viability, but having that information
could help explain, and then for councillors and the public to better
understand, why a particular route/method/proposal was being put forward.
Openness and transparency always helps.

Nigel GibsonHeadington

> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Disruption
> To: oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:47:21 +1200
>
> As that information has not been provided to the City Council AFAIK, it
cannot be uploaded to the City Council's website. I asked if it could be
displayed on the Trust's website and was told no because it was commercially
sensitive. The slides were displayed only for a short time as part of a longer
presentation.
>
> There is no EAPC protocol for applicants to give presentations. I don't know
if VE is prepared to show those slides at tomorrow's meeting if asked. That's a
matter for them.
>
> If you want to request that the slides are made available at the meeting, I'd
suggest you contact Jennifer Thompson in Democratic Services 01865 252275 in
the first instance, Nigel.
>
> Ruth Wilkinson
> Headington, Oxford
> About/contact Ruth Wilkinson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ruthwilkinson
>
>
> None
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6oYaMVfMyMqI9pDAWTJVrI

Rest of post

Darren writes that the county and districts councils should "take the
recommendations of the reports that they commissioned and merge into a unitary
council".

It seemed to me that those reports were focussed more on saving money than
improving local accountability so I recently attended a meeting (14th July
2016) organised by the County Council to present their view on how a
county-wide unitary authority would benefit Oxford's parishes and neighbourhood
fora.

Their main argument was indeed financial but it was larded with, in my view,
somewhat counter-intuitive sub-arguments that electors would have more
influence over council decisions and with fewer councillors there would be more
local accountability. I attach their PowerPoint presentation (pdf). I asked
whether the influence we had over Access to Headington was an example of this
approach as it seemed to me that the main benefits of AtoH would be for people
living outside Headington while it's drawbacks would fall on the residents of
Headington. Not so, I was told - apparently a new unitary authority would
benefit everyone in all possible ways!

OCC Town and Parish presentation June 2016.pdf 410.88kb

I agree with Nigel. My understanding was that it was not so much about
second-checking financial viability, as that in some way public benefit, or
carbon reduction, was relevant to the planning decision. But since all the
stats related to the overall project and the link was not separated out, there
was no way of weighing the disruption of the link against whatever it added to
the public good (if you go so far as to agree that keeping down the cost for VE
of providing heat and power to its customer is a public good). I am (a bit)
sympathetic to the idea that the value and pricing of the pipe is commercially
sensitive information in a competitive marketplace but I did think that we were
being a bit patronised by the idea that "public benefit" could freely be waved
around, even as the supporting data was withheld. The slide at yesterday's
meeting was apparently a concession by the finance director in the direction of
those (quite a few people) who had made the point. Personally, I wasn't at all
sure that the nice round figures banded around were (even if true) high enough
to make it worth all of this aggro and reputational damage to the Trust, but
I'm more down on it than most. The slide was a decent gesture, but little and
late.

The hospital can shove it's heat pipe up its arse as far as I'm concerned.

The heat pipe was granted planning permission last night, as expected. Ruth
Wilkinson has listed all the conditions here:
http://ruthwilkinson.mycouncillor.org.uk/2016/09/07/energy-pipe-given-planning-go-aheadwith-conditions/

The new Oxford Mail reporter for Headington & Marston, William Walker, tweeted
about the meeting as it happened:
https://twitter.com/OxMailWilliamW

There was an item about it on BBC Oxford television last night, including an
interview with Roz Smith and a local resident, but our local news appears to
have stopped being available on the iPlayer.

Let the chaos commence.

A kind person has pointed out that the piece on TV last night about the
heatpipe *is* available on the iPlayer, but only until 2pm today (Thu 8th).

It's here at 6:16 mins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07q2q8l/south-today-oxford-evening-news-07092016

Headline from today's New York Times:

"US Suspends Construction of North Dakota Pipeline after Protests by Native
Americans."

Let's see what happens here once the disruption starts!

Brilliant, Jeff!