CONSULTATION ON BARTON AREA ACTION PLAN

 

COMMENTARY

 

The vision for the development proposals is valid; whether it is realistic depends on the extent to which the constraints can be overcome, or at least mitigated.

 

It is probable that most responding consultees are well aware of the current status and uncertainty relating to the Core Strategy and the current Local Plan, so the references to the former are somewhat disingenuous, since the adoption of the Core Strategy remains uncertain at this time. The statements are thus somewhat unfortunate and risk engendering antagonism.

 

There should be more recognition and open discussion of the potential adverse effects on existing local communities, as well as the possible beneficial effects. How can the adverse effects on neighbouring communities be mitigated or minimized? How can they be compensated for by corresponding beneficial effects? Can the ‘export’ of undesirable social behaviour between adjacent areas be avoided? None of the objectives listed in the consultation paper adequately address these points.

 

It should have been better explained that an Area Action Plan will involve consideration of wider issues than just those mentioned – traffic and public transport, for example.

 

Objective 1 – Deliver a strong and balanced community

To ‘deliver’ a strong and balanced community, it will be necessary not only to get the housing mix right, but to address social and cultural issues as well. The ‘Issues’ paper makes inadequate reference to the need for provision of properly-considered social services, for example for youth activities and the elderly. This issue is of such importance, and has been so signally ignored, with serious adverse consequences in previous new developments of this type, that it should be dealt with as a specific, distinct objective – Objective 6 – see below.

 

Objective 2 – Facilitate regeneration of neighbouring estates

Regeneration involves much more than simply construction of more or new buildings; it implies revitalization of the local social and economic circumstances. To have any meaning, specific measures must be taken to bring about change, for example, better employment opportunities, personal empowerment, and better integration of communities, with exemplary local facilities. The regeneration of neighbouring estates will necessitate consideration of which estates are relevant, to what extent regeneration is necessary, which elements of regeneration would be appropriate, and what may be practicable in the context of the current development proposals.

 

Objective 3 – Improve accessibility and integration

The real major challenge to be overcome if the vision for the new development is to be achieved is the mitigation of the enormous physical and psychological barrier represented by the A40 Northern Bypass. This is the most serious threat to the success of the whole project, and hence requires the most intense consideration and, probably, rather more radical solutions than are implied in the current consultation paper. Whilst excellent accessibility and integration must be achieved for the new community, improvements in this regard must also be achieved for the existing neighbouring communities, but, emphatically, not at the expense of other local neighbourhoods. It is vital that the interests of existing successful communities are considered and promoted, hand-in-hand with provisons for the new residents.

Objective 4 – Encourage a low-carbon lifestyle

More specific details for enabling (not just encouraging) low-carbon lifestyles should be provided, for example, by setting high standards of energy performance and water and waste management in all new buildings, providing convenient re-charging facilities for electric vehicles, and designing with priority for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. For this development to be “…..an example for other new residential communities in the 21st century.” (see “Vision” statement) standards of design, specification and construction must be much higher than simply compliance with national statutory requirements.

 

Objective 5 – Introduce design that is responsive and innovative

The solution to the ‘barrier’ effect of the A40 is the most serious issue which will have to be developed; the ‘Issues’ paper demonstrates little evidence of innovative thought on this issue, suggesting that the only possible solution will be some kind of ‘green’ buffer. We have serious concerns that it will not be possible to create the vision aspired to without a radical re-structuring of the A40. Fundamentally, as long as it continues to be regarded as (and called) the Northern Bypass, its physical and psychological effect in dividing both the existing and the proposed communities of Barton from the rest of the city will be insuperable. The creation of ‘buffer zones’ and, possibly, acoustic barriers would only serve to increase the scale of the physical barrier, and exacerbate the isolation of the communities to the north. Instead, detailed consideration should be given to changing the character of the road altogether, by deliberately introducing junctions, possibly with roundabouts, to facilitate access to and from the communities either side, and to limit traffic speeds, one effect of which would be to mitigate the generated noise. The opportunity could be taken for extensive planting, and a boulevard-style, speed-limited city thoroughfare could be created. Sunderland Avenue, three miles to the west, which also forms part of the A40, provides an example of what might be achieved. This type of solution would offer a much better chance of achieving the objectives identified than any which simply attempts to ignore or disguise the presence of what is currently, effectively, a motorway.

 

A boulevard solution with at-grade junctions would also facilitate direct access to the John Radcliffe hospital site, important not only to provide benefit to the existing Headington communities, but also to allow easy access to this major centre of employment from the new and existing housing sites. One of the most significant likely adverse effects of the development is the potential increase in traffic in adjacent neighbourhoods, and generally. This should be carefully addressed, and by changing the character of the A40, and introducing additional junctions, it should be possible to both make car use the least attractive option for many journeys, and to effectively dissipate both newly-generated and existing traffic. In this way traffic congestion in, for example, central Headington might be alleviated, without undue adverse effects elsewhere. Equally, with carefully-designed pedestrian and cycle access, the new development could provide enhanced opportunities for existing Headington communities to enjoy the rural recreational facilities afforded by the footpath and bridleway network in the adjacent countryside.

 

Possibly the second biggest constraint to design, of which scant mention is made, is the presence of the important high-voltage electricity sub-station which dominates the centre of the site. It will certainly be necessary to divert overhead power cables underground, but these will still require wayleave corridors through the site, and the sub-station itself will be difficult to mask. Careful consideration will be required in the urban design to mitigate the effects of these features, not only visually, but also possibly to mitigate real or perceived radiation hazards.

 

 

In terms of the design of the buildings and infrastructure of the new development, much higher standards than current Building Regulations should be insisted upon; ‘Buildings for Life’ establishes some basic criteria, but stipulates little more than compliance with legal requirements. The designs should embrace the principles set out in the ‘Manual for Streets’ and car dependency must be genuinely designed out.

 

It is likely to be more fruitful for any ‘developer contributions’ which may be forthcoming to be focussed on high quality, properly integrated landscape design, rather than simply a piece of ‘street art’ or isolated sculpture.

 

ADDITONAL OBJECTIVE – Objective 6

An additional objective should be included: ‘To genuinely create a cohesive and contented society in the new community, and more widely’. The ‘Issues’ paper gives little consideration to the measures which will be necessary to ensure that this is achieved. The opportunity exists here for the delivery of the ‘social’ provisions, beyond buildings and urban infrastructure, which are essential to the establishment of a sense of community in the new development, but also to the strengthening of the existing communities in the immediate surrounding area, and, more widely, in Headington. This will necessitate the provision of adequate facilities for all kinds of recreation and social interaction, but also stimulation, support and encouragement to community ventures and initiatives.

 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Introduction and background

 

Question: Which areas might be included in the AAP?

The AAP should embrace all areas which might, potentially, be affected by the development proposals at Barton. This might be expected to extend as far south as Old Road, and should include most of Headington and Marston.

 

Question: What do you think would be a good name for the development?

The name should include ‘Barton’; alternatives might be ‘North East Oxford’, or ‘Bayswater’ but municipal arcadian aspirational names such as ‘Barton Meadows’ should be avoided!

 

 

Vision and objectives

 

Question: Do you agree with this vision? How would you amend it?

The vision is very optimistic, but nevertheless should be valid, so long as the project is developed with proper consideration of the critical issues. There is some doubt, however, that these have been properly recognised, or will be adequately considered.

 

Question: Do you think these objectives are appropriate? How would you improve them?

The listed objectives are insufficiently robust; for suggestions for improvements see below. There should be an additional objective, as suggested in the foregoing commentary.

 

 

Objective 1 – Deliver a strong and balanced community

 

Question: Have the key issues been identified in Objective 1?

Not adequately; delivering a ‘strong and balanced community’ will require more than getting right the balance of housing types, and providing affordable housing and a school.

 

Question: What community facilities would benefit both new and existing residents?

Schools, Post Office, local shopping, library (with internet access facilities), community meeting room/hall, recreation areas and equipment, excellent public transport and cycling facilities, avoidance of Green Road roundabout, reduction in noise from Northern Bypass (e.g. by reduced traffic speeds), provision of community policing, provision of community social support (e.g. youth officer, support for community groups).

 

 

Objective 2 – Facilitate regeneration of neighbouring estates.

 

Question: Have the key issues been identified under Objective 2?

Not properly. Few of the neighbouring estates are mentioned by name; there will certainly be others that need consideration. There may be different needs applicable to different estates. Some of the issues identified under this heading seem to have little relevance to regeneration needs. Under the heading ‘Social and community aspects’ there are only assertions of a need, and a reference to creation of a ‘sense of place’; this does not constitute adequate consideration of social and community aspects. Issues such as better integration with the rest of the city have not been addressed by any proposals which provide a convincing solution.

 

Question: What opportunities for improvements are there in the neighbouring communities?

The existing communities neighbouring the site are best placed to answer this question, and intensive, on-the-ground consultation should take place. Real consideration should then be given, and be seen to have been given, to the views expressed in this consultation. This question ignores the probably inevitable adverse effects which are likely to be suffered by neighbouring communities, and this suggests that such effects may not be properly considered. Such consideration is, of course, vital, since the project must deliver not only a successful new community, but also avoid the deterioration of the existing.

 

 

Objective 3 – Improve accessibility and integration.

 

Question: Have the key issues been identified under Objective 3?

Whilst the key issues of cars, pedestrians, cycling and public transport are identified, there is no prioritisation indicated; cars should be accommodated, but car dependency designed out, not allowed to dictate the form of the development. No imaginative solutions for the essential integration of the development with the city have been proposed; the only suggested solutions are stereotypical and unlikely to be successful. Accessibility should not be considered as a one-way issue: improving the access to the countryside north of the development area, for both new and existing communities across Headington, should be part of the objective.

 

Question: How do you think we can balance the desire to integrate the new development with the wider city with the need to minimise impact on existing residents?

‘Impact’ should aim to be positive and beneficial. Although it is inevitable that some existing residents will suffer adversely, it is very negative to consider only the mitigation of adverse impacts. It will be necessary to minimise both the number of these, and the severity of their impact, and to maximise compensatory beneficial effects. Some of the latter have been identified, and, in view of the importance of access as a key requirement for the proper integration of the new development, provisions for the new development should also improve access for existing communities, and mitigate the adverse effects already being suffered by them, e.g. traffic noise. The suggestion of the transformation of the A40 into a Sunderland Avenue-style ‘boulevard’ with at least two access points could achieve this.

 

Question: Do you have any suggestions of how access to the development site can be achieved for different travel modes (e.g. foot, cycle, bus, and car)?

The key issues are access, but also mitigation of the ‘excluding’ effects of the A40 Northern Bypass; both these could be addressed by re-engineering the A40, say between Green Road roundabout and the Marston interchange, to make it an urban boulevard, rather than a virtual motorway. All the other connections to the Green Road roundabout are already speed-restricted; extending the restriction westwards to the Marston interchange and introducing one or more junctions or roundabouts would slow traffic, reduce noise, provide opportunity for planting and landscaping and, suitably designed, would not only provide access to the new and existing neighbourhoods, but could allow proper connection with the rest of the city. At the same time, priority provision for pedestrians, cyclists and buses would be essential.

 

 

Objective 4 – Encourage a low carbon lifestyle

 

Question: Have the key issues been identified under Objective 4?

Largely, they have, though, for example, the provision of a network of cycleways will need to extend to and through the neighbouring areas to provide proper connectivity with the city, and this has not been identified.

 

Question: Do you have any ideas for how we can make it easier for new and existing residents to live low-carbon lifestyles?

Make better provision for, and encourage waste reduction and recycling. Make provision for and encourage local, small-scale food production, e.g. in gardens and allotments, and facilitate this with produce-exchange and convenient waste-disposal. Facilitate bicycle use in the new development, and elsewhere in the city, to make cycling the first-choice proposition for most journeys, for most residents. Keep citizens informed about environmental issues and their relative importance, so informed choices can be made, for example on travel behaviour and diet. Proactively encourage the implementation and operation of a car share scheme.

 

 

Objective 5 – introduce design that is responsive and innovative.

Question: Have the key issues been identified under Objective 5?

No. Most specifically, the reference to the ‘A40 buffer’ reveals an absence of adequately innovative thought. Issues are raised which are hardly high priorities for, and may even be counter to the realisation of the original vision, for example convenient navigation. Others, such as the need for an adequate broadband infrastructure are essential, not ‘responsive and innovative’.

Question: What design features do you think would make the new development a desirable place to live?

A good mix of society and housing sizes and types; good community facilities, including schools, shopping, social and recreational opportunities; serious landscaping and planting, as an integrated part of the design; recognition in the design of the unique and attractive characteristics of the site, e.g. rural outlook, Bayswater Brook etc.; really good provision for pedestrians and cyclists, including safe routes and convenient storage; good waste recycling facilities; effective mitigation of adverse traffic effects (including on the A40), e.g. noise, whilst providing reasonable ease of vehicular access

 

 

Please see the suggested additional Objective 6, outlined in the Commentary above.

 

Oxford Civic Society

July 2010