Tag Archives: Seacourt

Seacourt P&R expansion is, quite simply, not necessary (including 4 Dec parking data)

Posted on by • Posted in Planning • Tagged , , , , , , , ,

It’s easy to get lost in the long and complicated arguments over flooding and planning objections.

But one thing stands out, very, very clear, and very, very important:

There is no need to increase capacity at Seacourt P&R. Oxford has more than enough parking, including enough park and ride.

This is despite the opening of the new Westgate shopping area. If the parking isn’t needed then why does the Council want to spend over £4 million of your, public, money on it? Never mind that it will sit largely unused, and be subject to flooding, and expensive pumping out, maintenance and repair. No, we don’t understand it either.

We looked at online data two days ago, Monday 4 December, 3 weeks before Christmas. At the busiest time, 2pm, there were over 2,700 empty spaces, many in park and rides. Seacourt and nearby Redbridge had 538 empty spaces between them.

Click table to enlarge.


See also our letter to the Oxford Times

For more detail look at these reports:

minerva economics report

minerva further economics report

Westgate Transport Assessment Evidence

Objecting to Seacourt P&R extension – our latest comments

Posted on by • Posted in OFA, Planning, Publications • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

We remain strongly opposed to the planning application by Oxford City Council to extend its Seacourt Park and Ride into Oxford’s vital flood plain. There has been a nibble, nibble attrition of the flood plain over many years leading to worse flooding. That the City Council should itself be seeking to extend a car park into the flood plain that protects our city is quite extraordinary.

Here are our latest comments:

OFA comments on FRA Nov 2017 Final

OFA comment on PS Addendum Nov 2017 Final

Redbridge vs. Seacourt P&R from south + Maps

Letter to EA 30 November 2017_final

Lime stabilization considerations Nov17

OFA objections to revised Seacourt P&R FRA

Posted on by • Posted in Planning • Tagged , , ,

We have submitted our comments on the revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted by the Applicant, Oxford City Council, as part of its application to extend Seacourt Park and Ride into the floodplain north of the Botley Road, Oxford. It seems that this is being proposed as a panic response to a perceived lack of parking for the new city-centre Westgate development – that development has been known about for years and this application is evidence of a failure to plan properly for it.

We are opposed to this application on flood risk grounds and do not believe that the FRA gives a proper assessment of the risks.

The application is contrary to national planning advice and if allowed would set a most serious precedent nationally. Despite being asked, the Applicant has failed to supply a single example of where a similar development has been allowed,  in Flood Zone 3(b) – the floodplain proper, elsewhere.

There are risks of both groundwater and river (fluvial) flooding of this particularly low-lying site. We are not satisfied that the development, in the floodplain, would not increase risk elsewhere. It would put vehicles, and more importantly people, at risk during flood events: in a very big flood the water could be 2 metres deep and flowing fast. Washed away cars could block the nearby river (whether this is the existing channel or the proposed Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme channel) and bridge, preventing water getting away from the Botley Road area and making flooding there worse.

The car park is likely to be particularly expensive to build as the ground is inherently unstable and will almost certainly need special ‘lime stabilisation’.

It would be unusable during floods and require protracted pumping out and clean up afterwards – expensive in itself and losing revenue while the car park was closed.

It’s our view that the need for for this extension has not  been demonstrated, nor the economic case made. It could easily prove a costly white elephant, an embarrassment to the Council, an extra expense on a already strained public purse, and a risk to public safety.

Oxford is subject to regular and damaging flooding – its floodplain should never be a place for a car park. For its own City Council to be proposing such a thing is hard to understand. When this was first proposed the same Council was simultaneously proposing to remove a large number of spaces at Redbridge P&R a mere 3 miles away – whether that is still the case we do not know but it does rather suggest a lack of co-ordinated planning.

We hope Oxford City councillors will see that this idea is a disaster in the making and show their good sense in abandoning it.

The many objections to the proposal can be seen on the Oxford City Council planning website (search for Seacourt) https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20066/planning_applications/328/view_and_comment_on_planning_applications

Our own recent objection is also here as a pdf.

New Chair of RFCC visits Oxford

Posted on by • Posted in Local issues, Meetings, OFAS • Tagged , , , , , , ,

The recently appointed new Chair of Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC), Professor Robert Van de Noort, visited Oxford on 19 October with EA staff. He was briefed on the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme and then shown the Seacourt area at the western end of the Botley Road, which marks the northern end of the Scheme.

We were pleased to meet Professor Van de Noort in South Hinksey, where he went on to see both the lie of the land where the channel will come past the village and on to Kennington to the south, and the earthworks done in the village itself to make the village ‘temporary barrier ready’ for the coming winter and beyond.

Meeting with Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West & Abingdon

Posted on by • Posted in Meetings, OFAS • Tagged , , , , , , ,
We had a successful meeting with Layla Moran, new MP for Oxford West & Abingdon, last week.

We talked about the proposed extension of Seacourt P&R, to which we are strongly opposed. The proposal by Oxford City Council involves building in the floodplain and is in our view clearly contrary to national planning guidance. We see many other problems with the application too. We have submitted detailed comments in the past, and have now made further objections which can be found on the Oxford City Planning website:

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20066/planning_applications/328/view_and_comment_on_planning_applications

The application reference number is 16/02745/CT3.

We shared with Layla our ideas about making the most of the opportunities for freshwater wildlife that the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS) offers, and about ensuring robust arrangements for its maintenance long into the future.

Layla
  • is very supportive of our position on Seacourt.
  • aims to raise flooding in Parliament to address issues around how Flood Re is operating.
  • intends to join the All-party parliamentary group, APPG, for Flood Prevention.
  • is going to see what she can do to help secure the remaining money needed for OFAS.
  • was due to meet the Environment Agency soon after meeting us and would raise with them the question of long term maintenance for OFAS.
We look forward to working with Layla in the future.

Seacourt P&R – proposed extension

Posted on by • Posted in Planning • Tagged , , , , , , ,

We are very strongly opposed to the proposed extension by Oxford City Council  of Seacourt Park and Ride on the Botley Road, which has been mentioned here before.

If you want to see our latest objections go to http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OFE2FHMFIAV00  where you can see not only ours but the serious objections from others too.

If that doesn’t take you there direct go via https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20066/planning_applications  click ‘View and comment on planning applications’, twice, and then search for Seacourt or 16/02745/CT3.

“Flood Update” update – Seacourt P&R

Posted on by • Posted in Planning • Tagged , , , , , , ,

We have ‘A letter from the Oxford Flood Alliance (OFA)’ in the Autumn 2017 Oxford City ‘Flood Update’ which you may have received. In case you wondered why there was no comment by us on the planning application to extend Seacourt Park and Ride, we did include such comment in our letter but it was not published. It read as follows:

Seacourt Park & Ride

We have opposed the application by Oxford City Council to extend this P&R into the flood plain. The present application does not, in our view, show that flood risk will not be increased. We believe that a revised application will be advertised in the not too distant future and we will scrutinise this with care.

Revisions to the application have since appeared. You can find the application by going to https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20066/planning_applications/328/view_and_comment_on_planning_applications and searching for Seacourt. Ref. No. is 16/02745/CT3. The closing date for comments is 4 October 2017.

We are consulting with Oxford MPs Anneliese Dodds and Layla Moran on this. We believe that if this is allowed to go ahead in the functional floodplain, and being (we believe) contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it would set a most dangerous national precedent.

OFA Update, August 2017

Posted on by • Posted in OFA, Publications • Tagged , , , , , , , ,

We have just sent this to the people on our mailing list:

Since our last update in February this year we have seen further steady progress on the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS), designed to reduce flood risk for hundreds of properties in Oxford and nearby. We have been involved in several ways:
  • As part of the Sponsoring Group, the body representing the various partners in the scheme and having overall responsibility for it.
  • Urging that maintenance be provided for in perpetuity rather than just 10 years. We have proposed setting up a dedicated body to be responsible for this; this idea has received good support. We are discussing with the Environment Agency and partners other possible approaches, and if an independent body, what corporate structure might be best.
  • We have been working with the Freshwater Habitats Trust and the Environment Agency to try to ensure that the scheme (while it will regrettably involve some environmental losses) can incorporate significant environmental enhancements too, including the important freshwater habitat.
  • We are supporting the EA if their efforts to close the funding gap for the scheme – currently at $4m. This money needs to be found by the end of November if the scheme is to go ahead.
  • We have participated in a number of public consultation events about the route of the scheme.
OFAS is running to schedule, and assuming the money is found the next major step is application for planning permission, probably in spring 2018.
 
Local matters
Earl Street has a new, dedicated, mobile pump that will be available to them in the event of future floods. Nick Hills, an Earl Street resident and member of our Steering Group, applied successfully for a generous grant, £20,000, from Scottish & Southern Electricity Networks.
South Hinksey groundworks have been completed, meaning the village is now ‘temporary barrier ready’ when floods next threaten. Many thanks to the Vale of the White Horse District Council for funding and to the Environment Agency, especially engineer Magnus Williams, for all the hard work that’s made this happen.
Both areas can now look forward to the coming winter with more confidence.
Seacourt Park & Ride
As reported previously we opposed the application by Oxford City Council to extend this P&R into the flood plain. The application did not, in our view, show that flood risk would not be increased. We believe that a revised application will be advertised at some point and we will scrutinise this with care. The timeframe for this is currently not clear.
Local MPs
Following the elections this year we have two new MPs, Anneliese Dodds for Oxford East, and Layla Moran for Oxford West & Abingdon; we are in the process of meeting and briefing them on flood related matters. Both MPs are supportive of the need for a flood scheme.
OFA Steering Group

Seacourt P&R in the Oxford Mail; smart signs, plus risk to life

Posted on by • Posted in Local issues, Planning • Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

This article in the Oxford Mail talks about the possibility of  ‘smart signs’ – electronic boards – on the ring road, to alert drivers to where there are empty park and ride spaces around Oxford. This could obviate the (claimed) need to increase the number of spaces at Seacourt, instead pointing drivers to (say) nearby Redbridge. According to an earlier report in the Oxford Mail there is apparently so much spare capacity at Redbridge that the City Council proposes to remove 270 parking spaces, and is quoted in the newspaper as saying that the loss of these spaces would be ‘marginal’.

It seems to us to be inconsistent for the City Council to argue that removing 270 spaces at Redbridge is perfectly ok, while at the same time arguing a burning need to build new spaces at Seacourt – in the floodplain, on Green Belt land, contrary to local and national planning guidance and, as far as the present application goes, creating a potential risk to life (see towards the end of the first newspaper article and our previous post). Never mind the cost, which has already risen from about £2million to over £4 million.

 

Seacourt P&R – Key Point 2: Covenant, what covenant?

Posted on by • Posted in Climate change, Planning • Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Planning Statement for the application to extend Seacourt P&R states (para. 6.74):

” Consideration was given at an early stage in the design development to provision of a decked car park on the existing P&R site. This is not feasible because the existing P&R site is not within the Applicant’s freehold ownership and there is a legal covenant on the land which prohibits the construction of any buildings…”

That is to say, the rationale for an extension being needed, as opposed to raised decking on the existing car park, is that there is a covenant on the existing car park land which prevents the latter. We have asked the applicant if we can see the reported covenant but no such has been produced. Nor can we find one on searching the Land Registry. What we have been shown is an extract of what seems to be a form of lease agreement (not a covenant) on the existing car park. Such an agreement could potentially be varied by negotiation with the landlord.

See Key Point 1 and Key Point 3