All posts in the topic Westgate development (Short link)
Summary
- There are 20 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Danny Chivers at May 01 15:46 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Danny Chivers | Westgate Flyer Back | Feb 21 10:42 UTC |
I noticed the Westgate Partnership information stand in the Westgate Centre today: I was told it was also there last Friday and Saturday, but unfortunately today is the final day. Simon Ward, Marketing and Community Relations Manager for the Westgate Partnership, was present, answering a lot of questions from local residents. I filled in a form to register for updates and comment on the Westgate development, and when I asked if there was any way that people who missed the exhibition could do the same, I was told they should email Simon Ward directly: <email obscured> The Westgate Centre website might be worth adding to your favourites: http://www.westgateoxford.co.uk/ It is about to be given an overhaul. I complained about the fact that the Westgate Library is going to have to move out for this development, but the Westgate Partnership is only interested in commerce, not culture. We have been told that the main library is going to move into Macclesfield House when the library building is reduced in size, but I have no idea where the Oxfordshire Studies Centre is going to go. Does anyone have any idea? I go there at least twice a week, so I hope it is not going far.
All
I have checked with our Planning Department, and there will be a Library in the
Westgate Development. The new entrance will be onto Queen Street.
The Library will only be moved temporarily to Macclesfield House while the
development is taking place.
Unfortunately, the Planning Department could not tell me if the Oxfordshire
Studies Centre will be moved. The County Council are the ones who will make the
decision about how they use the Library space.
Continuing on the theme of the West End development we have had agreement from
Michael Crofton-Briggs (Head of Planning) to answer the forums questions from
25th to 28th February.
Each day I will compile your questions for Michael who will then answer them.
Every morning the answers to the previous days questions will be posted. This
is a real opportunity for people to get answers to burning questions about the
West End development.
If you already have some questions then start posting them, and I can make sure
we have a list ready for Michael.
Let’s start the ball rolling…
Why is it considered necessary to demolish the the purpose built sheltered
housing at Abbey Place?
Why is it proposed to evict tenants such as multiple sclerosis sufferer Vincent
McKeown without making a formal offer of suitable and comparable housing?
The Abbey Place development was only built in 1986, and was specifically
designed for people with physical disabilities and older residents. In
proposing to demolish this building and replace it with a car park, isn’t the
City Council now demonstrating that it values the interests of commerce above
the interests of its own most vulnerable citizens?
Hi all,
This might be of interest! A more comprehensive document detailing all of the
problems with the expansion plan is under construction - I'll post a link here
when it's completed.
Danny
*****Public Meeting Against Westgate Expansion - Thursday 28th February,
Oxford Town Hall, 7pm*****
Dear Friend,
You may have noticed (or heard about) the trees being cut down in Oxford
City Centre. This is "preliminary work" in preparation for a monstrous new
shopping centre, three times the size of the current Westgate complex.
If the plan goes ahead, it will mean more traffic and pollution, the
demolition of an entire street of sheltered homes, the loss of dozens more
trees and an increased risk of flooding. Local traders would suffer, and
the building's eco-unfriendly design would be a climate change disaster.
The plans have been hustled through the planning process with the minimum
of public consultation, despite local anger and fourteen official
objections. This scheme might benefit the developers, a few big chain
stores and the City Council's short-term budgets - but it would be bad
news for the rest of us.
Plenty of people would be happy to see the Westgate knocked down, but it
should be replaced with something better, not something worse. Any
development in our city centre should be eco-friendly, sensitive to the
needs of local people, and should support the long-term health of Oxford's
local economy not the short-term profits of big corporations.
We don't have to take this lying down! The plans can still be stopped, and
Oxford residents are getting together to do just that - but we need your
help.
We need as many people as possible to come along to the PUBLIC MEETING on
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 28TH at 7PM in the Town Hall to show their opposition to
the Westgate Partnership's city-trashing plans. We'll have speakers to
fill us in on what's wrong with the proposed expansion, then we'll get
down to planning how to stop it and discussing ideas for the kind of city
centre we REALLY want.
For more information, see the attached flyer, as well as
www.westgatewatch.wordpress.com or email
<email obscured>.
Thanks for reading - and please forward this on to as many people as
possible!
See you on the 28th,
Oxford Against Westgate Expansion
The following file was added to this topic.
- Name: Westgate Flyer Back
- Type: application/octet-stream
- Size: 83.15KB
All,
Please find below the Michael's response to last weeks questions:
Q. Why is it considered necessary to demolish the the purpose built sheltered
housing at Abbey Place?
A. The Westgate developers came forward with the proposal. The scheme includes
building a multi-storey car park, shops (including shopmobility and cycle shop)
and flats (50% affordable) on the Abbey Place car park, the location of the
College’s Evelode building and site of the Abbey Place flats. Planning
permission has been granted for this development. The City Council, in
considering the scheme as a whole was aware that the implications of the
development would involve the demolition of these properties. However, it
concluded that on balance that there were no substantive grounds to withhold
the grant of permission.
Q. Why is it proposed to evict tenants such as multiple sclerosis sufferer
Vincent McKeown without making a formal offer of suitable and comparable
housing?
A. A formal offer of suitable and comparable housing will be made to all the
tenants. Indeed an informal offer has already been made to all tenants
including Vincent KcKeown of a purpose designed and suitably adapted home at
Albion Place. New purpose built flats are currently being constructed here
which will be ready for occupation later this year.
Q. The Abbey Place development was only built in 1986, and was specifically
designed for people with physical disabilities and older residents. In
proposing to demolish this building and replace it with a car park, isn’t the
City Council now demonstrating that it values the interests of commerce above
the interests of its own most vulnerable citizens?
A. It is not the City Council that is proposing to demolish this building. As
explained above it was the Westgate developers that came forward with the
proposal. The City Council as planning authority can only refuse planning
permission where it has reasons that it can substantiate, if necessary at a
planning appeal. In this instance the developer, at its own expense is
replacing the properties in a comparable location with modern purpose built
homes specifically designed for people with physical disabilities. The new
homes at Albion Place will meet the latest building control energy and
sustainability standards and are designed in consultation with the needs of
individual tenant.
Therefore there were no substantive grounds upon which to refuse planning
permission. And the City Council has ensured that the developer goes to
considerable lengths to provide suitable alternative properties for this group
of people. In so doing the City Council has demonstrated that it does not put
commercial interests above those of vulnerable citizens.
> As Chair of Housing in the late 80s, I should add that the Abbey Place
development was primarily shared ownership ie half buy, half rent, as
the City Council's first step into offering less wealthy people the
chance to buy in the central area. Only the ground floor units were for
people with disabilities and/or the elderly.
Bob Price
I cannot help laughing when I read the phrase "no substantive grounds for
refusing planning permission".
The Council has just ignored and completely failed to register the immense
disruption, inconvenience and nuisance to the tens of thousands of people
who use the town centre, both residents of Oxford and those who come in from
outside. We don't want newer, bigger, mega-shops.
We want to left alone!
Year after year we are subjected to vast, hideous, noisy, dirty and
obstructive re-building schemes. Instead of being a place for people, the
city centre is a permanent building site.
The City Council has also failed to register that it is a serious
inconvenience even for a fit and young person to have to move house when you
don't need to. These people are being treated like junk, to be pushed around
and thrown out for the sake of profit. It is never environmentally
profitable to pull down and replace relatively new housing, so don't think
you are kidding us, Mr Crofton-Briggs.
The same goes for shops.
And finally, their reply has of course totally ignored the destruction of
the supposedly protected trees.
The burden of proof should be on the developers to demonstrate that any
changes affecting the public were necessary, not the other way around.
How would the councillors and bureaucrats like to be kicked out of their
homes?
The whole scheme is appalling and barmy, and I hope the meeting of
those who oppose it on Thursday evening at the Town Hall will be
well-attended.
I forgot to say that the time of the meeting is 7 pm.
*****Public Meeting Against Westgate Expansion - Thursday 28th February,
Oxford Town Hall, 7pm*****
I couldn't get to the meeting but am totally in support of its aims, doubtless
there are many like me. Wanted to say well done to Julia for her comments
reported in the Ox Times and to others for being active in this campaign. This
kind of corporate vandalism is happening all over the UK, I've been in
Birmingham and Croydon of late and both are appalling - great edifices of glass
and concrete, the same endless chains of megastores; roaring roads full of
traffic; people confined to underpasses and malls; tame, tiny trees. Oxford is
going to be wrecked by this scheme, we must act to change it.
Great that there's so much support for this - there were 100 people at the
meeting and plans are afoot! Although the meeting didn't talk about a mass
direct action campaign as the Oxford Times seems to think...
Anyone who wants to help out should come along to the next meeting (Thursday
March 13th at the Town Hall), or head over to westgatewatch.wordpress.com and
take part in the e-action and/or join the mailing list - thanks everyone.
The group is also starting to put together an alternative, positive proposal
for what should be done with the site - ideas so far include a proper public
transport hub, an eco-retrofit of the existing building, hundreds of new
affordable eco-homes, market space for local traders and a tram
station...anyone who has ideas to feed in or useful contacts to share can use
the comments on the westgatewatch blog or email
<email obscured>. If we can come up with a credible
alternative plan we might be able to get John Lewis to support us.
All the best,
Are there any plans in hand for a campaign to vote out the City councillors
who are responsible for this disastrous scheme?
What about Jean Fooks, in North Ward? Is anybody yet campaigning to inform
the voters there of what is going on and persuade them to vote her out in
May.
And what about John Goddard? And all the others? Are their rivals
poised to pounce?
Note that the City council chose a year when there were no local government
elections to slip their horrible scheme through the planning process. How
discreet of them!
Julia - Thanks for copying me in on your emails - good to see so much
active lobbying going on!
The public meeting tonight (7pm at the Town Hall) will decide what actions
the campaign should take on, and get people into groups to make them
happen. I think that "making Westgate an election issue" is already on the
list of possible actions to be discussed. We do need to be careful,
though, that we aren't seen to be aligned with any particular political
party or parties - we need to remain a strictly non-partisan group in
order to involve as many people as possible.
I won't be at the meeting tonight, but I'm sure I'll see you soon!
There is an interesting letter in today's Oxford Times from Steve Gerrish, who wonders why all the public comment relating to the approved Westgate plans 06/01211/FUL has been removed from the city council's planning website. He is quite right: if you go to http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/consultee_summary.aspx?keyval=J0W44SMF14000&refval=06/01211/FUL&previouspage=/publicaccess/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?dccaseno=J0W44SMF14000 you can see only the comments of Thames Water and the Oxford Preservation Trust: all comments from individuals have been removed. Full details of the Westgate plans are on this page: http://planning.oxford.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=06/01211/FUL There is too much in that list to count, let alone read. I have to admit I never worked my way through it all when there was still a chance to comment, and am only now coming to realize how horrible the implications are.
It is a very interesting letter from Steve Gerrish.
Could someone from the City Council please explain why -
a)for some applications consultee comments are displayed as 'No Details'?
b)what is the relationship between consultee comments and the documents listed
under 'View associated documents'? I would have thought that each time someone
comments this should generate a line on the consultee comments page, but this
does not seem to be the case.
c)why has all the public comment been removed from the Westgate application?
Chris, I have sent this on to Michael Crofton-Briggs from the Planning Department, to ask him to reply to these questions. All best wishes, Richard. Chris Brewer wrote: > It is a very interesting letter from Steve Gerrish. > > Could someone from the City Council please explain why - > > a)for some applications consultee comments are displayed as 'No Details'? > > b)what is the relationship between consultee comments and the documents listed under 'View associated documents'? I would have thought that each time someone comments this should generate a line on the consultee comments page, but this does not seem to be the case. > > c)why has all the public comment been removed from the Westgate application? > > Chris Brewer > > Info about Chris Brewer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/chrisbrewer > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1fkGhzez0KDsWMW2HaoGqz
In earlier proposals about Westgate, we were promised an integrated bus and rail station to be built at Oxpens, to mitigate potential traffic problems generated by the Westgate proposal. I am surprised that despite Oxford desperately needing such a new modern rail/bus station, to cater for Oxford's commuters, these plans have been dropped. Such a proposal would provide a very useful facility for the proposed new network of Oxford based rail services proposed by the East West Rail Consortium. http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ http://oxfordprospect.wordpress.com/
All
Please find below the answers to Chris Brewer's questions. The answers should
also cover the comments made earlier by Stephanie:
a)for some applications consultee comments are displayed as 'No Details'?
The planning web site (Public Access) displays data from the back office system
in real time. When a field displays ‘No Details’ it means that there is no data
in that field in the back office system.
The consultee comments lists the number the number of standard consultees (see
answer to b below) that have been sent a consultation letter.
Not all letters receive a reply so there are blank rows in the back office
system.
b)what is the relationship between consultee comments and the documents listed
under 'View associated documents'? I would have thought that each time someone
comments this should generate a line on the consultee comments page, but this
does not seem to be the case.
Consultee Comments are comments from Standard Consultees.
Standard Consultees are national and local bodies, organisations or amenity
groups for which we have names, addresses and information about what sort of
applications they want/need to be consulted on.
Standard consultees are separate from local residents in an area to whom we
send consultation letters informing them of applications on which they may want
to comment.
The comments from the Standard Consultees are recorded in the back office
system and displayed on the Public Access system. The comments from these
Standard Consultees should appear in the Consultee Comments.
The comments from neighbours and the general public should appear in the
Associated Documents. All comments should be available via one or other
mechanism.
The software we use dictates this process. The current functionality is not
ideal but it does make sure all comments are available to view whilst an
application is current and pending a decision.
c)why has all the public comment been removed from the Westgate application?
Our policy, as with many other authorities, is to display comments on an
application whilst it is current and to remove them when an application is
decided.
These comments do not form part of the public planning register, but if anyone
requests to view them after the application has been decided the planning
department will make them available on an individual basis.
A very belated thank you to Shey Cobley for the helpful information.
I'm not sure all comments from members of the public do appear in Associated
Documents -
I commented on an application in Headington and nothing ever appeared.
Also, I'd suggest that public comments are still displayed for a reasonable
time after
an application is decided, possibly two years might be appropriate. The cost of
computer
storage is negligible these days, and I think it would be providing a useful
service.
The complete file remains available at Ramsay House, but I admit this is not
as convenient as the website.
Tony Joyce
In response to today's Oxford Mail front page, this might be of interest! ****************************** Press Release – 01/05/2008 New Westgate “Could Flood West Oxford” Local campaigners say “it’s not over yet” The proposed Westgate expansion could lead to increased flooding in the most vulnerable parts of the city and has not been properly inspected, local campaigners stated today. The controversial plan – which would triple the size of the Westgate shopping centre - passed a legal hurdle this week with the compulsory purchase of a street of sheltered homes at Abbey Place. However, local residents opposed to the scheme are calling for the plans to be put on hold until a full Environment Agency flooding assessment has been carried out. Oxford resident Danny Chivers said “The current Westgate plan includes the concreting of green space, the removal of mature trees and the creation of a huge underground car park on the flood plain – very close to the homes and streets that flooded in 2007. Yet a full assessment of the flooding impacts has not been carried out. This is completely outrageous. “We are calling on Oxford City Council to request a full flooding assessment from the Environment Agency, to cover not just the site but the surrounding areas, in line with the new Government flood risk directive* that came into force since the original Westgate plans were approved. “How on earth can this scheme go ahead without checking whether it will put people’s homes underwater?” Campaigners are also concerned about the traffic and climate change impacts of the current plans, and the effect on small independent shops across Oxford. Instead, residents are calling for a different kind of city centre development. Dr Alison Chisholm, another local resident said: “We do think that Oxford City Centre needs improving, but why can’t we have an eco-friendly development with a proper bus station, hundreds of affordable homes, and space for local traders rather than yet another bog-standard traffic-generating shopping centre? This should be an opportunity to make our city better, not worse. That’s why more and more people are joining this campaign.” A full “What’s Wrong With The Westgate Expansion” document is available at www.westgatewatch.wordpress.com, along with details of how to get involved in the campaign. * Planning Policy Statement 25 – see http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps25floodrisk
Posting
Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.