All posts in the topic Obstructions in Headington shopping centre (Short link)
Summary
- There are 18 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Stephanie Jenkins at Aug 15 07:12 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Stephanie Jenkins | shops.jpg | Aug 11 12:30 UTC |
I thought it was best to make this a separate topic from the one on the
underpass, in the hope that people will report the hazards they see.
I counted ten cafés and about eight shops with their wares on the pavement on
Saturday. Unfortunately, however, because most of the shops started off as
private houses, they own the part of the pavement that used to be the front
gardens. But are they allowed to block off the upper pavement completely when
the lower pavement has obviously been made narrow on the assumption that the
upper area will remain passable?
I also saw three A-boards placed illegally right in the middle of the London
Road public pavement that were a real hazard, and I hope that the city council
may at least be able to do something about this.
One of the most difficult areas to negotiate is around the bus stop outside
Iceland. The positioning of the bus stop pole and the bus shelter leaves
precious little room for a bus queue to stand and results in pedestrians being
unable to walk along this lower pavement.
As the second phase of the London Road works has been delayed, there would
appear to be no immediate chance of improvement.
The short answer, to my own frustration, is 'yes' -- the upper pavements are
privately owned and, legally, they can do what they want with them. That
said, I have in the past talked to one or two of the store managers and
persuaded them to act as 'good neighbours' and reduce the area they take up,
but perhaps the effect of that is wearing off now!
The only sure way to keep the upper pavements open to the public is by the
Council buying them -- but that would be prohibitively expensive, I'd have
thought. This whole issue relates to one of the concerns about the next
phase of the London Rd developments: the public pavements *are* narrow and
there is a need for more space for pedestrians rather than less.
David
David Rundle
City Councillor (LibDem), Headington Ward
Because of the narrowness of the pavement portion of the adopted highway and
the many changes of level along the road. People in wheelchairs or (in my case)
with shopping and baby buggies need to use the upper pavement. I would have
thought that this has been the case for a long time, certainly the twenty years
necessary to have them declared a right of way.
I know we've mentioned pavement seating in Headington centre many times before,
and we know that it is true that the landowners of shops own the part of the
pavement abutting their frontages, but I noticed, thanks to Ruth's website that
the planning application for Starbucks says that they are asking for change of
use to mixed A1/A3 and change of use of part of the pavement for seating in
connection with the change of use of the premises.
I think we've assumed that if they own it they can more or less do what they
want on their bits of pavement, but the fact that Starbucks are asking
permission makes me wonder if there are controls on what they can do outside.
I know when Cornmarket was pedestrianised and the city was trying to encourage
a "pavement cafe" ambiance in the street, we got planning applications as well,
which allowed us to condition how far out they went and what sort of look we
wanted and what sort of boundary definition they should have (we wanted for
example potted trees and not airport style queue ropes.
Maybe it's worth asking - at the very least perhaps the community can have a
say in what the outdoor seating areas look like if not prevent them.
These pavement areas used to be the front gardens of private houses, and I
assume they now have the status of an open patio, from which the general
public is not excluded. In most cases, apart from an occasional
advertisement, they are not directly associated with the commercial activity
of the shop behind, except for access and perhaps as a viewing area for the
contents of the shop window. If I wanted to change the use of my front
garden from an amenity space associated with a private dwelling to a space
ancillary to a commercial activity, I would certainly regard this as a
change of use within the definitions of planning legislation, and I would
expect that the same would apply to the pavement areas in question. Under
these circumstances, it seems to me that if the pavement is to become a
street café, a planning application for change of use is required - but I
can't quote the relevant case law off hand!
Tony Joyce
On 2/8/08 15:48, "Jock Coats" <jock.coats@headingtonhillandnorthway.net>
wrote:
> I know we've mentioned pavement seating in Headington centre many times
> before, and we know that it is true that the landowners of shops own the part
> of the pavement abutting their frontages, but I noticed, thanks to Ruth's
> website that the planning application for Starbucks says that they are asking
> for change of use to mixed A1/A3 and change of use of part of the pavement
for
> seating in connection with the change of use of the premises.
>
> I think we've assumed that if they own it they can more or less do what they
> want on their bits of pavement, but the fact that Starbucks are asking
> permission makes me wonder if there are controls on what they can do outside.
>
> I know when Cornmarket was pedestrianised and the city was trying to
encourage
I'm not sure that there would be any need for planning permission for a cafe
to put tables on an otherwise unused "pavement" area. It isn't "operational
development" if the tables are movable and taken in at night; and using an
additional part of premises for a use for which permission exists for another
part wouldn't normally constitute change of use. (The position would be
different, of course, if there was any encroachment on the highway proper, for
which a licence would normally be required.)
The problem seems to lie in the interpretation of the Use Classes Order (in
case law) that allows shops (A1) to sell hot food and drink for consumption
on or off the premises provided this is ancillary to their main shop use, and
the difficulty in defining what is "ancillary". The onus is on the local
authority to show that the balance has shifted so far that the sale of cold
food
to take away has ceased to be the dominant use and that cafe (A3) or
take-away (A5) permission is needed (and meanwhile, the establishment can go
on
trading). Provision of tables for customers might help demonstrate that the
use
had changed, but might not be conclusive.
A web search for Oxford planning "pavement cafe" yields 2500 results!
Chris Dunabin
I have to say that I agree with Howie Watkins above - I have the joy of
recovering from a damaged back and have found that negotiating my way around
these obstacles incredibly difficult with or without back pain, whilst
clutching a pram or laden with shopping.
I am a caterer myself and I'm not allowed (at my current premises)to block the
pavement in any form, even though we do own the first four feet. Admittedly, in
my case, that would be nearly the entire pavement.
I'd be curious as to what the definition is of 'unused' pavement?
Abigail Wyatt-Rose
I have to say that I agree with Howie Watkins above - I have the joy of
recovering from a damaged back and have found that negotiating my way around
these obstacles incredibly difficult with or without back pain, whilst
clutching a pram or laden with shopping.
I am a caterer myself and I'm not allowed (at my current premises)to block the
pavement in any form, even though we do own the first four feet. Admittedly, in
my case, that would be nearly the entire pavement.
I'd be curious as to what the definition is of 'unused' pavement?
Abigail Wyatt-Rose
Abigail asked for a definition of "unused" pavement. I think what Chris meant
was "pseudo-pavement", namely a paved area that looks as though it is part of
the public right of way but in fact belongs to the adjacent shop: see for
example Starbucks or Fusion hairdressers, whose outdoor tables are on their own
land; or Barclays Bank, who have a sign warning people that the inner pavement
is part of their curtilage.
We have a lot of this type of pavement in the Headington shopping centre, and
the reason is historical. Until the late 1920s the London Road was a primarily
a residential area, because Headington was then still three villages, each with
its own high street. The houses on the London Road all had front gardens, and
when shops gradually took them over, they paved their front gardens so that
people could look easily in the shop windows and park prams, etc.
Pedestrians (and local authorities) have been taking this extra pavement for
granted; but now that so many shops are reclaiming their territory, the lower
pavement on its own is often quite inadequate. It is particularly bad outside
Starbucks, where a bus bay for the Park & Ride has been cut into the only part
of the pavement that is now usable.
I am uploading a portion of the 1921 OS map of Headington centre, stretching
from Stephen Road to Bury Knowle Park on the north side and from Kennett Road
to Stile Road on the south. You will see that the terrace of humble Victorian
cottages between Old High Street and Bury Knowle Park then had tiny front
gardens: hence the upper pavement area belonging to the shops that subsequently
moved into that terrace is quite small (so the Copacabana, Mojo's, and Internet
cafés can only put out very small tables). Conversely the grander houses
between Kennett Road and Windmill Road had big front gardens, and this is why
the raised area and steps belonging to the shops there is so wide.
The following file was added to this topic:
I have already made this point but I feel that its significance was missed so
I'll make it again and try to be less obtuse:
Note the signs outside Barclays Bank that point out that the pavement area
adjacent to the bank is 'not a right of way'. This is important as it
establishes their right to control acces. I mention this because the other
shops have not sought to hinder pedestrians using their land in this way. We
can easily prove that we have had the ability to walk over the land in front of
the other shops for twenty years. Therefore we have a concessionary right of
way over this land and we could petition for the land to be made a public right
of way should we so wish. However, from experience of these matters the County
Council would not be happy about this because then they would have to pay to
maintain it. I would recommend that in the event of any obstruction we should
therefore merely threaten this course of action rather than actually doing it.
Follow me?
I am not sure that we would have a concessionary right of way on the shops'
land when there is already a highway footpath (albeit rather mean) running
adjacent to it. Maybe someone with legal experience could confirm this?
And highway footpaths (pavements at the side of the road) are not defined as
public footpaths. So when they become wider over the years by encroachment and
usage, wouldn't the extra bit be considered part of the highway footpath,
rather than as a separate and adjacent public footpath?
(If highways footpaths were a right of way, we could all get up in arms with
the county council, who are greatly narrowing the pavements on both sides of
the Headington Road at this very minute.)
Going back to obstructions, there are two live applications at the moment for
putting tables on the Headington pavements:
Starbucks: 08/01534/FUL
Cafe Bonjour: 07/01941/FUL
The date for comments on the latter has long past, but Jock has told us that
comments can be submitted right up until the decision date. I hope that people
who feel anxious about the amount of pavement clutter in Headington will
comment on these applications.
I'm no legal expert but I think Howie's right, both in his suggestion of
what's possible and the problems that could arise. It should be added that
the owners might well challenge any claim to right of way because the space
can be lucrative: I still remember the occasion a few years back when an
advertising board was put up, without planning permission, near
Blockbusters. An application was demanded, rejected and then accepted on
appeal. Being able to have something like advertising on the land makes it
valuable.
My own view is that, with the London Road 'improvements' expected in this
area in the next few years, we should make sure they are improvements and
look more widely at the range of aspects of the streetscene, including the
state of the pavements.
David
David Rundle
City Councillor (LibDem), Headington Ward
The presence of the nearby adopted highway is not an issue. A concessionary
right of way may still be claimed.
The most practical course of action when a trader blocks an area of pavement is
to politely ask them to stop blocking it. If they refuse the next step is to
point out that should a body of local residents decide to report the
obstruction and request that the right of way be recognised they are looking at
some very serious legal bills if they want to fight it.
The actual process of getting a concessionary right adopted is difficult, the
threat is by far the most efficient means of maintaining access.
Pip pip.
Howie: would you like to co-ordinate a group of people to report obstructions
in the Headington shopping centre? Should they contact you off-forum?
If the situation is not clarified, more businesses could put up railings
completely blocking off the upper pavement as Starbucks has done. Even if
their tables were removed, the Starbucks forecourt would no longer be usable as
pavement because of those barriers. (Yesterday there was a broken-down X70 bus
being repaired in the bus bay outside Starbucks and there just wasn't any room
for pedestrians at all.)
Starbucks was granted permission in September 2007 to build an entrance ramp
into their shop (07/01876/FUL: 71 London Road: “Alteration to entrance
forecourt to provide level access ramp”), which I suppose is a tacit
acknowledgement that Starbucks owns the upper pavement. But the permission
"specifically excludes other details of the shop front and forecourt”, so it is
unclear to me whether they were allowed to put up the railings to the east that
are nothing to do with the disabled ramp but effectively prevent any right of
way.
Apologies. I see the point that it's a bad idea to change the subject line in
messages.
Flora Alexander
> To: <email obscured>
> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [HMNF] Obstructions in Headington shopping centre
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:33:12 +1200
>
> Abigail asked for a definition of "unused" pavement. I think what Chris
meant was "pseudo-pavement", namely a paved area that looks as though it is
part of the public right of way but in fact belongs to the adjacent shop: see
for example Starbucks or Fusion hairdressers, whose outdoor tables are on their
own land; or Barclays Bank, who have a sign warning people that the inner
pavement is part of their curtilage.
>
> We have a lot of this type of pavement in the Headington shopping centre, and
the reason is historical. Until the late 1920s the London Road was a primarily
a residential area, because Headington was then still three villages, each with
its own high street. The houses on the London Road all had front gardens, and
when shops gradually took them over, they paved their front gardens so that
people could look easily in the shop windows and park prams, etc.
>
> Pedestrians (and local authorities) have been taking this extra pavement for
granted; but now that so many shops are reclaiming their territory, the lower
pavement on its own is often quite inadequate. It is particularly bad outside
Starbucks, where a bus bay for the Park & Ride has been cut into the only part
of the pavement that is now usable.
>
> I am uploading a portion of the 1921 OS map of Headington centre, stretching
from Stephen Road to Bury Knowle Park on the north side and from Kennett Road
to Stile Road on the south. You will see that the terrace of humble Victorian
cottages between Old High Street and Bury Knowle Park then had tiny front
gardens: hence the upper pavement area belonging to the shops that subsequently
moved into that terrace is quite small (so the Copacabana, Mojo's, and Internet
cafs can only put out very small tables). Conversely the grander houses
between Kennett Road and Windmill Road had big front gardens, and this is why
the raised area and steps belonging to the shops there is so wide.
I have been restudying the OCC London Road Improvement Proposals map. The plan includes the widening of traffic lanes, and the layby on the north side, approaching the Headington traffic lights from the Oxford direction. The pavement is to be reduced to 2 metres (I dont know its existing width). At the bus stop bay near Starbucks the pavement is to be widened 'to remove pinch point for pedestrians' to 2.5m , It looks as if the bay is to be reshaped. The existing traffic light changes are shown on this map The plans can be seen at http://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/roads_transport/major_projects/london_road/Final_exhibition_plans_C_and_D.pdf http://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/roads_transport/major_projects/london_road/Final_exhibition_plan_E.pdf
It is certainly to be hoped that the London Road improvements will solve some of the pavement problems; but we won't see these improvement until 2011 (if then). Some problems need solving now: most of them simply show lack of consideration, and something could be done. I went around late yesterday afternoon (Thursday 14 August) photographing some of the hazards, and I have put them on this webpage for convenience: http://www.headington.org.uk/news/items/2008/obstacles.html For the benefit of those who don't want to go online, I will list below what the photographs show. ● A chicane of three boards on the pavement near Kennett Road ● A pseudo-café with its tables rendering the pavement quite inadequate for people dragging suitcases to the airport buses ● Another pseudo-café, which always puts its board on the public part of the pavement ● A new phone box being installed before the two old ones are removed, which has already blocked the public pavement almost entirely for some weeks ● A charity shop causing an obstruction with its A-board ● A shop which prefers to block the public pavement rather than use its own frontage for its board ● The worst example of all: another pseudo-café which has filled its own frontage with pavement tables leaving only a very narrow part of public pavement where people can pass. That is bad enough: but this "retail shop" then blocks this narrow passage with its A-board ● The railings which Starbucks have put up, which force people to walk in single file as soon as they reach the Park & Ride bus bay ● A typical example of callous and dangerous pavement cycling