Residents in vow to fight 'alien' block (From thisisoxfordshire)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Residents in vow to fight 'alien' block
12:00pm Tuesday 9th October 2012 in News
By Oliver Evans, covering Banbury. Call me on 01865 425271
The revised plan for 12 apartments at West Way, Botley
RESIDENTS and councillors are fighting to defeat revised plans for an “alien” apartment block in the centre of Botley.
Vale of White Horse District Council gave planning permission in April for a block in West Way of 12 apartments despite concerns.
A revised plan has now been submitted by removing duplex apartments and adding balconies, changing the exterior.
A district council planning officer has recommended councillors approve the three-storey plan, which would result in the demolition of two houses.
But North Hinksey Parish Council said in a response to the council: “The proposal would introduce an alien form of building into this area.”
It said the Cantay Estates plan is too large and “does not take into account the local distinctiveness and character of other flats”.
The 17 planned parking spaces is inadequate, it warned, and would “generate pollution and be noisy”.
A Seacourt Road resident told the Vale they were “very concerned” by the plan, for two-bedroom flats, as it borders their garden.
Adding they were “saddened” by the loss of single homes, they added: “I’m not against progress but little thought is given to the people it affects the most.”
Suzy Vecchietti, who also lives in the street, told the council she was concerned about light pollution, noise and loss of privacy.
She added: “Is ample parking being provided for residents and their visitors? I ask this as someone who knows how impossible it is to park on Eynsham Road.”
Debby Hallett, a councillor for North Hinksey and Wytham, said the plan was “out of character” and said Botley has too many flats to rent.
She said: “This ‘always for let’ atmosphere makes this look like an over-developed, high density, undesirable place to live. We have an over-supply of flats in the area.”
Vale planning officer Stuart Walker said the “unashamedly modern” building had adequate parking and “respects the amenity and privacy” of neighbours.
He said: “It will not detract from the character of the area and will not harm residential amenity or highway safety.”
Henry Venners, the agent for the scheme, told the Oxford Mail further revised plans would be submitted if it is refused.
It had been revised at the request of Cantay, which came on board after the April permission, he said.
Members of the Vale’s planning committee will be asked to make a decision at its meeting on Wednesday at Abbey House, Abingdon at 6.30pm. The public can attend.
Comments(15)
mandate
says...
1:27pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Dilligaf2010
says...
2:02pm Tue 9 Oct 12
paul from Kennington
says...
3:27pm Tue 9 Oct 12
H.J.Harris
says...
5:20pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Andrew:Oxford
says...
5:49pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Shame that there isn't a roof-top garden.
Myron Blatz
says...
6:16pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Andrew:Oxford
says...
9:30pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Myron Blatz wrote:Are you sure that the "dreaming spires" planning regulations of Oxford affected Berkshire in the 60s?
Yes, absolutely terrible and no architectural taste, or design which is sympathetic to the area - such as Seacourt Tower, that atrocious 1960s/70s monstrosity which started life as a Ford main Dealer (Hartwells?) and offices, with a sharp, pointy thing stuck on the roof to get past planning regulations about the 'dreaming spires' skyline. Nor can one ignore the 1960s/70s shopping precinct at Botley, no matter how many times it has suffered a 'facelift' and increased rents for the retail units. Truth is that developers are only interested in maximising asset returns for minimum outlay - and after 25 years, it's usually more cost-effective to knock everything down, start again and make even more money!
Sophia
says...
8:41am Wed 10 Oct 12
The "local distinctivenss" of Botley - what a hoot!
Botley has all the charm and distinctiveness of a run down 60s shopping precinct, haunted by run down 60s shoppers, and topped off by the excresence of Seacourt Towers. This building would be a breath of fresh air. So natch, the locals hate it.
Botley should be dynamtied, building by building, covered with earth and planted with trees, and a memorial erected saying NEVER AGAIN
BackontheMainland
says...
10:46am Wed 10 Oct 12
Lets get back to free range, with gardens for us to enjoy.
NinjaBiscuits
says...
1:07pm Wed 10 Oct 12
BackontheMainland wrote:How ridiculous, I hope you're just being facetious! The majority of people wanting a house in Oxford can't afford a flat, let alone a house with gardens! Are you mad? We need lots more flats then maybe one day I can buy myself one, when my pension comes in I expect!
I think flats should be banned, same as I think battery hens should be...
Lets get back to free range, with gardens for us to enjoy.
paul from Kennington
says...
5:29pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Andrew:Oxford wrote:Nice one Andrew, as you know I was a Berkshire baby as well.
Myron Blatz wrote:Are you sure that the "dreaming spires" planning regulations of Oxford affected Berkshire in the 60s?
Yes, absolutely terrible and no architectural taste, or design which is sympathetic to the area - such as Seacourt Tower, that atrocious 1960s/70s monstrosity which started life as a Ford main Dealer (Hartwells?) and offices, with a sharp, pointy thing stuck on the roof to get past planning regulations about the 'dreaming spires' skyline. Nor can one ignore the 1960s/70s shopping precinct at Botley, no matter how many times it has suffered a 'facelift' and increased rents for the retail units. Truth is that developers are only interested in maximising asset returns for minimum outlay - and after 25 years, it's usually more cost-effective to knock everything down, start again and make even more money!
Richie24
says...
8:33pm Thu 11 Oct 12
If anyone is foolish enough to think they offer a chance for first time buyers, I think NOT, these will more than likely sell to investors, who will charge a high rent and ensure that no first time buyers who earn even a reasonable wage will never be able to afford them. Wheres the social housing element too? Or have the developers been able to escape that one? The only real winner is the land owner and developer fact!
paul from Kennington
says...
12:04am Sat 13 Oct 12
Richie24 wrote:The Vale are generally quite good when securing money for planning deals, but I think this development is below the number for social housing. As for being out of character, they are very similar to the block just round the corner in Elms Road, although I can't imagine what it must be like living in the flats right next to the A34 flyover.
I don't mind the style of architecture, however I am not convinced it will sit well with the surrounding properties, I have seen similar blocks in Kidlington and the whole area has a look of not being planned due to the difference in appearance.
If anyone is foolish enough to think they offer a chance for first time buyers, I think NOT, these will more than likely sell to investors, who will charge a high rent and ensure that no first time buyers who earn even a reasonable wage will never be able to afford them. Wheres the social housing element too? Or have the developers been able to escape that one? The only real winner is the land owner and developer fact!
jockox3
says...
11:02am Sun 14 Oct 12
Vale of White Horse figures suggest they are wrong. But this will provide pretty empirical data hopefully.
oafie says...
1:08pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Really, how come there's so many people looking, as usual those with homes live the I,m alright Jack life...sod off everyone else