All posts in the topic Oxford Brookes 'Called in' again
Summary
- There are 11 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by David Clover at Mar 19 08:54 UTC
I for one am very sorry indeed that the Lib Dems have once again 'called
in' the Brookes planning appeal. I think it's wholly irresponsible on
their part.
The value to Headington of the University is very great and the cost to
the public purse and now the Council's purse of doing this all over
again is substantial and a complete waste of money.
We've been right around round the block on this once already, and the
scheme has been substantially amended and re-approved.
How much longer will this drag on before we get the development properly
under way?
David Clover
Yes, I would like to hear from them as to why as well.
The only thing I can think of is that it is an attempt to ensure "due
process". In the previous setup on the council, if a decision had
been made by full council previously and the application came back,
amended, to the old Planning Committee, generally speaking the chair
of planning would decide that since it had previously been a full
council decision, the new decision should also be made by them and we
would not in fact approve or refuse it in committee but send it to
full council with a recommendation as to whether to approve or not.
I do know there are people who oppose this scheme who have the will
and ability (and past form) to take any permission decision at
whatever stage looks "final", be that committee, council or appeal,
and attempt to have it judicially reviewed. For there to be a
judicial review there would need to have been some kind of procedural
irregularity or misapplication of a point of law, rather than of
planning grounds, in the course of the application.
It may be, and this is the only grounds on which I can rationalise it,
that this is behind some councillors' decision to call it in. But if
so, it is a risky strategy. At 22-15 votes against last time it needs
several people to change their minds and hope that none of those who
didn't vote for whatever reason last time do not, in fact oppose it.
Given the number of councillors who have declared and interest and
cannot vote anyway, 22 is already an effective overall majority of
councillors.
I'm not an apologist for Lib Dems, and I'm a huge supporter of the new building
in rejuvenating the campus, but it ought to be said that it's the Greens who
did the running on the call-in:
The Mail lists those supporting the call-in as:
Green councillors Nuala Young, Craig Simmons, David Williams, Elise Benjamin,
Mary-Jane Sareva, Matt Morton and Sushila Dhall; Lib Dem councillors David
Rundle, Clark Brundin and Christopher Scanlan; Labour’s Mark Lygo; and Stuart
Craft, of the Independent Working Class Association.
It sounds as if somebody is practising the dark arts of spin. If someone has
claimed to you that either of the major parties locally called in either of the
applications they are being very mischevious. If a party had decided en masse
to call in an application, that would demand investigation and disciplinary
action, as planning must legally not be party-political. As it is, the latest
call-in was initiated by a Green councillor and supported by six other Greens,
three LibDems and one of Labour and Independent Working Class each.
For both applications, I personally have been involved in the call-in and I
fully stand by that. My preference is always that such a planning decision
should be taken locally in the area committee where all councillors can be
expected to have personal knowledge of the immediate context. When it can not,
as in this case, I believe the decision should be taken by all councillors and
not dealt with a centralised planning committee. A councillor's calling in an
application can not be taken to mean that they necessarily disagree with the
decision proposed by the committee. Certainly, for my part, what has guided me
is a determination that such an important and undeniably controversial
application should go through the full process so that there can be no doubt
that it has been as thoroughly considered as possible. That's my personal view
and I don't pretend to speak for my colleagues in my party when I make it.
It should go without saying that I am keeping an open mind on this application,
as the law expects, and I am reading carefully all the letters coming in on
both sides of this debate. Let's hope that all councillors who are eligible to
take part will approach the debate impartially.
David
I absolutely agree with all that David Rundle has said above.
This is a building on a massive scale in a residential area. Let's imagine that
this building was to be a retail development with shops and service outlets (or
a Joe Bloggs jeans factory!). The implications of its presence, in terms of
impact of size, numbers of users, traffic etc. would be similar.
Of course it is right that it should be subject to the fullest debate and
enquiry.
Brookes has certainly, as the Vice Chancellor said recently, been of enormous
benefit to the local economy.
It has also generated enormous social costs to the local community.
John Batey.
John describes the building as massive and the area as residential. (BTW
OBU is no longer my employer) But whilst this was 'very' true in the 1960s
when John Brookes led the first college development here, there has been a
large building and also a couple of large schools and a large publisher
which have all steadily grown over the last 30-40 years. The site is on a
busy major road where you would expect buildings of this nature and scale,
and it is in a small city with major education sector employment. The
nature of much of the neighbouring housing has also steadily, even
remorselessly changed over the years. So it can be seen that this is
'steady change' not a sudden imposition. What should be actively sought by
people, councillors and planners, and what should be provided by OBU in this
context, is a frontage to the streets which is useful and active rather than
a blank lump (a characteristic of some of the old university's new buildings
and most of the new Health buildings in the area. The private sides of OBU
and its neighbours should be designed in as neighbourly fashion as can be
achieved and I suspect shields are not really what I would want. More trees
would fit well. And also hundreds more decent, convenient and secure bike
parking facilities.
Graham
Thanks.
I dispute the tenor of your response to the effect that change has been 'steady
over the last 30-40 years'. My guess is that the most significant expansion in
terms of student numbers, land and property development has occurred over the
last 10 years. It has almost overtaken Oxford, which took 500 years to get
where it is now! (Why the Polytechnic, created to encourage more vocational
studies had to become yet another university in common with many other, less
noteworthy institutions is another story, but I accept that it does a good
job).
Also, you assume, as do many BU apologists, that there is some kind of divine
right for Brookes to enlarge, expand, build wherever, when no such right
exists. My point is that, like the JR move to Headington and the ensuing
colonisation of that totally inappropriate area, people see this kind of stuff
as 'good' and other stuff (Joe Bloggs' factory) as 'bad'. Yet the outcomes are
exactly the same in respect of impact on the community.
Incidentally, I was interested to see that you are no longer employed by
Brookes but use their email address!? You're not really the Vice Chancellor are
you?!
John Batey.
Hear hear Graham. This should be viewed as an opportunity not a threat, and
some active frontage would be beneficial. A large building with outlets at
street level will look much more attractive than a large building behind a
barrier or a load of shrubbery.
Regards
Noam Bleicher
078 1847 1655
056 0268 4870
There are two different issues here.
a) The actual planning application - on which I am not going to comment.
b) The process. Given the unacceptable delays caused by the existing process,
the costs to the applicant and us as taxpayers and the evident frustration -
shouldn't the council be trying to look at ways to make large applications like
this far less bureaucratic whilst still going through the required scrutiny?
For anyone who doesn't yet know, the Oxford Brookes plans were approved at the full city council meeting last night: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/5071267.Uni_wins_fight_to_revamp_site/
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.