Rents for new homes next to Bury Knowle Park

In response to resident concern, we have asked the City Council to clarify the rents for the new social and affordable units at Lock’s Court. It seems that 5 of the originally advertised charges were not accurate and they will be re-advertised.

Here is the response we have received from the City Council.

The social rents are set around 47% of the market rent for the property type for the area. In addition to the rent, relevant service charges are also due.

The affordable housing units are set at either 60% of market rent (Lock’s Court) or 78% of market rent (the remainder). There are no service charges for the affordable units as they are considered inclusive of the rent.

As a result of these conditions, there will be always be some properties with a much higher charge than identical properties, however .. the demand for the affordable rent properties is very high nonetheless.

We have however identified a problem with the recent advertisements for the 5 affordable rent properties in that the rent shown was at 78%, not 60% as it should have been. Although the demand was high, we are aware that many applicants may have been put off from bidding because of the additional rental cost, including potentially some of those in greatest housing need. As a result, we will be re-advertising those properties with the correct rent figures. We will be contacting those who have made bids to explain and apologise for the mix up. The social rental properties advertised are unaffected.

The table below shows the correct charges for each property. The total charge includes rent debit, and where appropriate (for social housing) charges for care taking and cleaning, grounds maintenance, LL Lighting, TV and aerial repairs, and service. The affordable homes are on first floor level.

 

House No. Rental Type No of Beds Permitted number

Total Debit
1 LOCK’S COURT SOCIAL 2 4  £121.85
2 LOCK’S COURT AFFORDABLE 2 4  £142.34
3 LOCK’S COURT SOCIAL 2 4  £121.85
4 LOCK’S COURT AFFORDABLE 1 2  £124.38
5 LOCK’S COURT SOCIAL 2 4  £121.85
6 LOCK’S COURT AFFORDABLE 2 3  £142.34
7 LOCK’S COURT SOCIAL 3 5  £136.03
8 LOCK’S COURT AFFORDABLE 1 2  £124.38
9 LOCK’S COURT SOCIAL 2 3  £121.85
10 LOCK’S COURT AFFORDABLE 2 4  £142.34

 

 

The trees on the Botnar boundary

Bedroom 1

 

Ruth met the Council’s Tree Office for a site visit in Cecil Sharp Place last week prior to his meeting with the University about the maintenance and management of trees on their boundary.

The officer tells us that the University agreed the following:

  1. To reduce the height and spread of conifer trees along the boundary with Cecil Sharp Place to address the complaints from residents in the short term. An elder tree near the northern end which over hangs the garden of no.s 1-4 will be removed completely at the same time. The OU Parks Superintendent is going to put together a specification for these works and send it to the City Council for approval under the conditions of planning permission for the Botnar building. When approval is given the work will be carried out.

  2. To prepare a plan for removing and replacing the conifer trees along the boundary with Cecil Sharp Place in the longer term. The plan will be to remove the existing conifers and replace them with a mix of holly, yew, birch and scots pine trees planted further from the boundary fence to replace the screening in a way which is less of a problem for residents and easier to manage by the University. The University will actively consult with residents on the proposals;

  3. To continue managing the conifers along the boundary with properties in Wilberforce Street at their existing height. The trees were reduced in height last year and this work will be carried out every 3-5 years as necessary.

 

The scope for the pruning work in 1. above is quite limited; these trees don’t have dormant buds underneath the bark and so unlike broadleaved trees will not produce new growth if they are cut back beyond the green foliage. To avoid creating an ugly brown face to the trees for residents it will not be possible to prune back to the boundary.

It was confirmed that trees further east along the boundary with Mattock Close properties are not within the Botnar site and responsibility. We are contacting the NOC separately about works to those.

 

 

This week’s planning decisions

Wwo this week – see details below.

15/00062/FUL PERMITTED

Change of use of club to provide 2 x 1-bed and 1 x 2-bed flats. Provision of cycle parking and bin storage. (Amended plans)

2D Windmill Road Oxford

15/00782/CPU REFUSED

Application to certify that the proposed single storey extensions to the south-east elevation are lawful development

42 London Road Headington

 

Response to Connecting Oxfordshire

Headington LibDem councillors sent in the following comments to the County Council in response to LTP4/Oxford Transport Strategy

 

  1. We welcome these documents as they provide useful baseline information, and we believe that the proposals are generally well-considered and innovative, although we find it difficult to make comments on some of the ideas as we do not feel we have enough information on which to give a view.

 

  1. We look forward to the publication of proposals and options in respect of improvements to the A34 and to the public consultation later in the year.

 

  1. We believe that any work undertaken by the County Council on the detail of the projects within this scheme should be informed by consultation with Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Forums and local councillors in the area. The emerging Headington Neighbourhood Plan is likely to include transport-related proposals and projects requested by the local community after wide local consultation, and a continuing good working relationship between all parties is of benefit to all.

 

  1. We note that many of the projects listed in the Science Transit Strategy have no funding identified at this stage. The number of jobs in Headington has grown substantially in recent years and will continue to do so, particularly at university and hospital sites, and this, coupled with the lack of affordable and keyworker housing in the local area, has given rise to concerns about the volume and speed of through traffic, congestion and air pollution, and increased calls for more cycling facilities and connecting routes.

 

 

Strategic Environmental Assessment

 

  1. We believe that insufficient weighting has been given to issues arising from the strategic environmental assessment: Appendix C – effects on human health. Specifically, the following issues require further consideration and/or resolution.

 

  1. We note (p3-1) that the Association for Directors of Public Health recommends that 10% of transport budgets is committed to walking and cycling. We cannot find evidence in the proposals to show that this notional figure will be met by projects set out in the OTS.

 

  1. Section 2.4 refers to the need for a road safety strategy within and beyond the county. There is also reference to the need for programmes of safety measures within the plan. The science transit strategy in section 3.7 suggests that technology and data innovation should be embraced, and we suggest that this should be extended to unlocking accident and near miss data too.

 

 

  1. Accident numbers at junctions have been highlighted, and we support further research on the most effective way to mitigate accidents and near misses particularly at junctions of “A” roads with residential roads in Oxford City. We believe that a transport safety advice team should be allocated a budget within LTP4 to research best practice and give advice and sign off to project managers on road safety-related matters.

 

  1. We believe that insufficient weight has been given to the reduction of emissions, particularly in areas where there is a higher proportion of elderly residents and congestion is high, and that improvements in air quality should have a higher policy priority. (Section 2.9 Effect on the elderly). Overall air quality targets should meet those set out in district council air quality plans.

 

  1. Promotion of urban tree planting to improve air quality should be a key objective rather than something that may be addressed at project level. We suggest that the County identifies the species of trees that are suitable in urban areas across the city where congestion is worst.

 

 

B4955

 

  1. We note on p9, vol 2 section (i) that

Congestion has a serious impact on public transport within the Eastern Arc, making journeys on the orbital routes longer and less reliable (notably those which use the B4955)

 

  1. Given that this is a very congested route, and that the number of vehicle journeys within the Eastern Arc are high, it follows that Bus Rapid Transit line 3 would be high priority.  However the Science Transit Strategy document sets out the project for full electrification of BRT line 3 as “aspirational” rather than “proposed” with an implementation date of 2026-30 (which is odd as the “proposed” project to reopen the Cowley branch for passenger trains by Chiltern Railways with an implementation date of 2019-24 is described as intersecting BRT line 3). We suggest that the status of Bus Rapid Transit line 3 should be changed to “proposed” although we don’t have enough information yet to form a judgment on whether BRT lines are workable.

 

  1. We also note that the need for “a timed access restriction (e.g. bus gate or road user charging point) on Hollow Way” has been identified. It seems likely to us that this will displace some vehicle traffic on journeys from Cowley through to major employment destinations and schools in Headington. More vehicles may use Divinity Road and Southfield Road. Alternatively, they may use the eastern bypass, prefer not to queue up the Slade, and instead rat run through Headington Quarry Village which is a Conservation Area.

 

  1. We suggest that consideration is given to restricting vehicular access through Quarry as a through route to Headington from the bypass, and that other commonly used rat runs are identified and analysed to identify measures to reduce the volume and speed of through traffic in residential roads, e.g. in Old Headington Village from the Green Road roundabout to Northway.

 

District centres

 

  1. We recognise the difficulties in resolving tensions below:
  • The need to ensure a quality of place in district centres on the radial routes (p11)
  • The need for high quality BRT waiting facilities (p12)
  • Minimising conflict between those waiting at bus stops and other road users by allocating sufficient shelter capacity (p13)
  • BRT stops being inset from the main carriageway (p15)
  • Transit hubs at district centres would maintain safe walking and cycle access by keeping people segregated from public transport and vehicle movements.

 

  1. It is difficult to visualise how and where the above could happen in Headington District Centre, given existing highway widths. Would the County Council consider ‘buying back’ some of the privately owned frontage in front of the shops on London Road and land in Windmill Road and Headley Way?

 

  1. We agree wholeheartedly with the statement on p22 of OTS vol 2 (i) which says: “Public realm improvements should be integrated into multi-modal access improvements in the centres of Cowley and Headington, to improve pedestrian footfall, promote local shopping and stimulate local regeneration.“

 

Buses

 

  1. We currently see little in the OTS that will reduce the overall numbers of buses travelling through Headington. Is it possible to quantify the reduction in local buses that would follow from the introduction of BRT route 1?

 

  1. We are concerned about the amount of disruption that may occur during construction on major routes where rapid bus transit may be introduced. The A420 London Road is currently being re-built, but electrification is not part of the spec. Does this mean it will have to be dug up again? How long would this take? And what negative impact would this have on local traders?

 

  1. We feel that the evidence for a bus transit tunnel would be strongest between the Eastern by-pass and the JR hospital rather than in the City Centre, but we believe that such a proposal would be far too costly unless a major funding source can be identified.

 

  1. We believe there is scope to offer some bus services to and from London and the airports directly from Thornhill Park and Ride, rather than from the City Centre, and there is space there for a bus ‘laying off point’.

 

  1. We have reservations about some of the BRT routes which have been referred to by officers as ‘conceptual’, including the route across the Lye Valley, and require firmed up proposals so that we can make informed comments.

 

 

Motorists

 

  1. If CPZs are introduced across the City, there would be issues relating to the parking of commercial vehicles – is there a plan for how to deal with this?

 

  1. Given that proposals refer to an increased need for taxi use, some consideration should be given to identifying areas for taxi and minicab drivers waiting for work outside the city centre

 

  1. Short stay parking is at a minimum in Headington as our traders constantly remind us. A review of RPZs in the Headington area is long overdue.

 

  1. The proposition to build above Headington Car Park was investigated fully and discounted from Oxford City Council’s Sites and Housing Plan 2011-2026 after widespread consultation.

 

  1. Has the County Council investigated whether capacity has been reached at stakeholder workplaces e.g. BMW, all of Brookes campuses, or is there spare capacity for use by, for example, commercial vehicles? Could the County Council purchase access to excess spaces and derive income from these?

 

  1. Workplace parking levies can penalise low paid workers if passed onto employees by the employer. Some employees commute to work by car because of caring responsibilities or because the time needed to take alternative forms of transport is prohibitive- does the County have a view on what is acceptable travel to work time? More detail is needed around this proposal before we can comment further.

 

  1. We would welcome more measures to slow speeding vehicles in urban residential areas, this may encourage folk to use other means of transport.

 

  1. To reduce congestion round the hospitals, a link from the A40 direct into the JR should be considered.

 

  1. We would support a feasibility study to determine whether a system at Thornhill Park and Ride could be offered whereby hospital staff and patients could enter a code or swipe a card on entry to gain access to parking places which may be subsidized by OUHT and/or the County Council.

 

  1. We would support further research and cost-benefit analysis of road user charging to inform further thinking.

 

 

Cycling

 

  1. We believe that insufficient consideration has been given to the promotion of cycling and walking as pastimes, rather than as modes of travel to work. Quiet routes are well-used and more could be developed.

 

  1. The cycling routes outlined in the Connecting Oxfordshire document show that two cycle super routes stop at different points as they join the A420 London Road. We would support consistently signed and joined up cycle routes, particularly to and from schools and major employment sites. Cycling routes should be segregated wherever possible.

 

  1. Innovative improvements to cycle routes and signage should be piloted in areas where cycling is a popular means of transport both to work and as a pastime. The ‘safety in numbers’ principle is best tested here, and improvements could then be rolled out to other areas of the City

 

  1. Cycle super routes should be prioritised in areas with high growth in employment and/or housing. Purchase of land by the County Council to ensure that these routes meet the required standard should be considered.

 

  1. There is a demonstrated need for better cycling connections between Cowley and Headington which is not sufficiently addressed in these proposals.

 

  1. We believe that pre-signals for cyclists at traffic signal junctions would be well worth considering as these might reduce the risk of accidents at junctions.

 

  1. The routing of cycle tracks around bus stops and bus shelters needs further consideration for safety reasons. This is a frequently reported concern.

 

  1. We urge the County Council to encourage and work with hospital trusts and the universities to provide better routes and signage for cyclists on their sites.

 

  1. More work can usefully be carried out to educate cyclists, in the workplace and school, and outside. There is scope for wider stakeholder and community involvement in cycling education projects. The County could also work with stakeholders to provide training for drivers of motorized scooters.

 

  1. We fully support a city-wide cycle scheme e.g. Oxonbikes as we believe the Headington scheme has been popular, especially by those travelling to work.

 

Pedestrians

 

  1. We do not think that enough is done within the OTS to promote pedestrian transport. We would welcome a feasibility study or project to introduce puffin crossings more widely. These have sensors that detect pedestrians and also control traffic lights. The balance between traffic and pedestrians in residential areas and shopping areas should be more heavily weighted towards pedestrians in order to “ensure a quality of place” (see 15 above).

 

  1. There are desire lines for pedestrian crossings which merit further consideration, e.g. across the A420 London Road at the Osler Road junction, outside the Bury Knowle Health Centre, and across the A40 dual carriageway connecting the Risinghurst and Barton communities.

 

  1. We should like to see more projects to upgrade footpaths, which would encourage more people to walk as their chosen mode of travel. This would also help the elderly and those with mobility problems.

 

  1. School travel plans promoting safe pedestrian routes should be given a higher priority. Changes could be made at junctions to encourage more walking to school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Cllr Roz Smith, Headington and Quarry Division

City Cllr Ruth Wilkinson, Headington Ward

City Cllr Altaf-Khan, Headington Ward                                                    02/04/15

Is there enough space for plant stands at Headington Waitrose?

Waitrose would like to apply for a horticultural stand to the left of the supermarket entrance from the Headington Car Park, but some residents fear that plant displays and shoppers considering purchase may obstruct the walkway to the entrance.

We have arranged for a similar stand to be put up at 11:00 am on Wednesday 8 April. This should give anyone who can be free to attend a chance to see how much space such a unit takes up and how it fits into the space.

If you can help us test this out, please do come along and give us your views. We hope that some of our wheelchair-bound residents and those with mobility scooters will also give it a go!

The plant stand will look a bit like this

IMG_0748

Overnight closures of London Road in April and May

The County Council advises that the stretch of road between Stile Road and the Green Road roundabout will be closed overnight from 8.00 pm – 6.00 am on the following dates:

Monday 27th April to Friday 1st May 2015 – for 4 nights – 8.00pm to 6.00am

Wednesday 6th and Thursday 7th May 2015 – for 2 nights – 8.00pm to 6.00am

This is to facilitate road works as part of the London Road re-build.

 

Latest planning decisions

Here are the latest delegated planning decisions.

15/00113/FUL PERMITTED

Erection of 2 x 4-bed dwellings (Use Class C3) fronting Norton Close. Provision of car parking and bin and cycle storage. (Amended plan)

Land To Rear Of   70 & 72 Windmill Road

14/03494/FUL REFUSED

Erection of two storey side, part single, part two storey rear extension and first floor side extension.

182 Headley Way Oxford

 

Planning application next door to Dorset House

The application to certify that the proposed single storey extensions to the south-east elevation of property at 42 London Road are lawful development has been refused. For more details please click here.

We are frequently asked about this property, it is located on the corner of Latimer Road and London Road, immediately next door to Dorset House, and has boards around it.

 

Regulations to make landlords install smoke alarms

The call for mandatory smoke alarms has formed a central part of the LGA’s key report ‘The Fire and Rescue Service: Making our Nation Safer’. This document sets out a blueprint for the next government, with a series of proposals for how fire and rescue services can improve fire safety and save the public purse money.

Lib Dem ministers in government have tabled regulations before the end of this Parliament requiring all private sector landlords to install smoke and carbon monoxide alarms .

While the majority of private sector landlords are reputable and voluntarily install alarms, there are a small minority who do not, needlessly putting lives at risk. They have a duty of care to their tenants and this important measure will ensure this is met. A working smoke alarm can make the difference between life and death and should be seen as every bit as essential as a lock on the front door.