From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 27 October 2014 13:45
To: nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill
Dear All
Please see below – panic over!
Best wishes,
Carolyn
———————————————
From: Finance Division
Sent: 27 October 2014 13:39
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Graduate Accommodation; Asset and Space Management
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: RE: Castle Mill
Please see attached – my records show an additional 3 2-bed flats in block H giving 312 in total including caretaker’s flat
Regards
Finance Division
———————————————————-
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 27 October 2014 13:25
To: Finance Division; Graduate Accommodation; Asset and Space Management
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill
Dear All,
I hope you can help! [Asset and Space Management] has kindly put together the information below which has confirmed that we have 127 units in Phase 1 at Castle Mill.
My concern is the figure for Phase 2.
As you know we are submitting the ES on Thursday this week and throughout the document we state that there are 312 units in Phase 2.
It is going to be a major issue if this is wrong.
Can [Finance Division] have a look and see if by any chance [Asset and Space Management] has missed 3 units.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
******************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 27 October 2014 13:17
To: nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill
Dear All,
Please see below and attached.
The right answer on Phase 1 but not on Phase 2 – I will try and establish why.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
******************************************
From: Graduate Accommodation
Sent: 27 October 2014 13:11
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Castle Mill
Dear Carolyn,
I have looked again at the figures, and I believe I missed off the DDA flats. Sorry about that. Please find amended attached.
I have found the figures that you were sent a while back, and unfortunately I think there was an error before – I make it 10 x 2-bed flats in the 2nd phase (not including the caretaker’s flat), not 13. I have been through the plans a few times now and counted them all up so I think it must be 10.
Best wishes,
[Graduate Accommodation]
| Phase 1 | BLOCKS | Phase 2 | BLOCKS | ||||||||||||||
| Room Type | Total | A | B | C | Room Type | Total | D | E | F | G | H | J | K | L | Gatehouses | ||
| En-Suite Rooms | 65 | 15 | 15 | 35 | En-Suite Rooms | 138 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Studio S | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Studio S | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | ||
| Small Double Studio | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Small Double Studio | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | ||
| Double Studio | 9 | 3 | 0 | 6 | Double Studio | 26 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | ||
| 1 Bed Flat | 32 | 13 | 12 | 7 | 1 Bed Flat | 90 | 19 | 21 | 11 | 11 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 2 Bed Flat (1 = caretaker’s) | 18 | 13 | 0 | 4 | 2 Bed Flat (1 = caretaker’s) | 11 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| TOTAL UNITS | 127 | TOTAL UNITS | 309 | ||||||||||||||
| Total number of Bedrooms | 145 | Total number of Bedrooms | 320 | ||||||||||||||
—————————————————
From: Graduate Accommodation
Sent: 27 October 2014 10:17
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: RE: Castle Mill
Dear Carolyn,
Please find pasted below and attached. I hope this is what you wanted, let me know if you need any more information.
Best wishes,
[Graduate Accommodation]
| Phase 1 | BLOCKS | Phase 2 | BLOCKS | |||||||||||||
| Room Type | Total | A | B | C | Room Type | Total | D | E | F | G | H | J | K | L | Gatehouses | |
| En-Suite Rooms | 65 | 15 | 15 | 35 | En-Suite Rooms | 138 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 0 | |
| Studio S | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Studio S | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | |
| Small Double Studio | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Small Double Studio | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | |
| Double Studio | 9 | 3 | 0 | 6 | Double Studio | 26 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | |
| 1 Bed Flat | 26 | 12 | 7 | 7 | 1 Bed Flat | 90 | 19 | 21 | 11 | 11 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 Bed Flat | 17 | 13 | 0 | 4 | 2 Bed Flat | 11 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total number of Bedrooms | 137 | Total number of Bedrooms | 320 | |||||||||||||
—————————————————————
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 26 October 2014 10:21
To: Graduate Accommodation; Asset and Space Management; Finance Division
Subject: Castle Mill
Dear [Graduate Accommodation],
I hope you can help on the basis that I know [Graduate Accommodation] is still away on holiday.
Could you please advise me of the make-up of units in phases one and two at Castle Mill.
I need to understand how many bedrooms there are as well as the number of units. On the basis that I know we have some two beds, I anticipate that depending on how the calculation is done, there may be a difference between the number of bedrooms and the number of units.
I hope this makes sense.
Many thanks,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
**************************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 26 October 2014 10:18
To: Nik Lyzba
Cc: Adam Boyden; Legal Services; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: Re: Confidential – Correspondence
Dear Nik,
Many thanks.
I wonder if the issue or possible confusion may be the difference between number of units and beds depending on how they are viewed. We have some two bed units and as such I am not sure how they are treated when calculating. I hope this makes sense.
I will also check with the team the make up of both phases.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
——————————————————————–
On 25 Oct 2014, at 18:18, “Nik Lyzba” <nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk> wrote:
I have spoken with Oxford Architects and Nick Caldwell has confirmed the number of bed space for Phase 1. I will confirm the total in comparison between the original Phase 2 and the current scheme on Monday when I am able to count them up from the plans on the Council’s web site.
Nik Lyzba
**************************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 25 October 2014 18:08
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; nik Lyzba
Subject: Re: Confidential – Correspondence
Dear Adam,
I believe we have replied confirming that the number of bed spaces in Phase 1 is 127, but I cannot access my emails to confirm this was sent to you last week.
I am not able to see your amendments in red, again working remotely but am happy for you to proceed with the notes as amended by you. I was not at the meetings and cannot really comment and as such must rely on your notes etc.
I am concerned by your comments on the number of bed spaces but hope we can resolve this next week.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
———————————————————————–
On 24 Oct 2014, at 13:33, “Adam Boyden” <adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Carolyn, [Legal Services],
Apart from the NTS (please can you let me know if it is approved), the last thing to update for the ES is the appendix 3.4 Notes of consultee meetings. After consulting EH, OAHS, CMAA, OPT, WLWRA and OCS, I have amended the notes in line with their requests of George Lambrick (OAHS), [Resident] (CMAA), and Peter Thompson (OCS) for amendments, in red in the attached. I am comfortable with the revisions as the notes make it clear that George and [Resident] (not we) raised the issues described.
We need to agree both NTS and this appendix so we can get the CDs (DVDs) in production this afternoon.
The query raised by Sietske on the number of bedspaces approved in 2002 and 2011 remains, as we have dealt with the number of units so far. The SPMC and CPRE will raise this issue during the public consultation and assert their architect’s view that the difference is only 65. I think it would be prudent for you to have the correct number to hand, but to do that we need to know how many bedspaces have been provided in Phase 1, so please can you advise? We do not need it today though!
Best regards
Adam Boyden
*********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 24 October 2014 18:38
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Nik Lyzba
Subject: Re: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential – NTS
Dear Adam,
Thank you.
As long as [Legal Services] is happy with the text then fine by me.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
——————————
On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:14, “Adam Boyden” <adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Carolyn,
This is fine, I take your point, Bertie has gone, please see attached. Alternatively we could include another image (also attached) in its place to show the buildings from the stream and new planting.
Please can you or [Legal Services] let me know if all else is ok, and we can print, with or without the alternative image.
Regards,
Adam Boyden
**************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 24 October 2014 10:50
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: [Legal Services], Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Nik Lyzba
Subject: Re: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential – NTS
Dear Adam,
Many thanks and I will rely on [Legal Services] to pick up any drafting points.
I am still concerned at the inclusion of the sketch of the badger. I think it is likely to unnecessarily irritate the allotment holders and on that basis I would prefer it is not included. I appreciate you discussed this with [Legal Services] yesterday but I do not agree with its inclusion. To date the allotment holders have supported us, we know there have been ongoing issues with the badgers and I see no point in including the image.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
—————————
On 24 Oct 2014, at 10:28, “Adam Boyden” <adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk<mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk>> wrote:
Dear Carolyn, [Legal Services],
Please can you review the attached amended NTS and let us know if OK to start printing.
Best regards
Adam Boyden
—————————————–
From: Adam Boyden
Sent: 23 October 2014 17:27
To: ‘Carolyn Puddicombe’; [Legal Services]
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential – NTS
Dear Carolyn
Thanks for the comments. We are amending to add in images of Option 1, remove the night time photo, amend to read ‘graduate accommodation’ more, will send you a final version early in the morning. Happy to discuss then also.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 23 October 2014 17:18
To: ‘Adam Boyden’; [Legal Services]; ‘Nik Lyzba’
Cc: ‘Sara Metcalfe’; ‘Nicholas Pearson’
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Dear Adam,
I think this has all been signed off and we are done.
Many thanks,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
—————————————————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 23 October 2014 11:16
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services; Nik Lyzba
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Carolyn, [Legal Services], Nik,
I have included as discussed;
Chapter 1 (1.2.6) and 4 (4.6.5) text:
Following consideration of the ES by Oxford City Council, details of changes to the elevational treatments to the buildings suggested in option 1 in the Design Mitigation Strategy (see ES chapter 4 (section 4.6), chapter 7 and Appendix 7.2) will be submitted in a new planning application at a later date. This would also include for all necessary pre-application consultation. Full details of the tree planting suggested in the Design Mitigation Strategy will be submitted to the City Council under planning conditions 5, 7 and 18 (see Annex 1).
NTS text (at end of section 4):
Following consideration of the ES by Oxford City Council, details of changes to the elevational treatments to the buildings suggested in option 1 in the Design Mitigation Strategy will be submitted in a new planning application at a later date. This would also include for all necessary pre-application consultation. Full details of the tree planting suggested in the Design Mitigation Strategy will be submitted to the City Council.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
***********************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 23 October 2014 15:51
To: ‘Adam Boyden’; [Legal Services]
Cc: ‘Sara Metcalfe’; ‘Nicholas Pearson’; ‘Nik Lyzba’
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential – NTS
Dear Adam,
Thank you for this.
I have not had a chance to discuss this with [Legal Services] and have skimmed the contents.
My comments are –
- I am concerned there are so many images at the beginning and in the main body of the existing;
- I am not sure we need the drawing of the badger – I think it might just serve to unnecessarily irritate the Allotment Holders;
- We do not have many images of Option 1 which we are offering;
- The night image is not helpful and without any explanation I am not sure why it is there.
- I have read Section 15 and I believe it is okay.
- I note that you do not always refer to ‘graduate’ when writing about the accommodation.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 23 October 2014 15:27
To: [Legal Services]; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential – NTS
Dear [Legal Services], Carolyn,
Please see attached the final NTS which takes in all recent edits and comments.
Please can you check you are happy, particularly with section 15, and let me know it is ok to go to print this afternoon.
I will call shortly to discuss.
Best Regards,
Adam Boyden
**********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 23 October 2014 10:09
To: [Legal Services]; Adam Boyden; Nik Lyzba
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
[Legal Services] and I have just discussed this and as long as we are submitting the trees as part of the landscape conditions over the next few weeks then no need to refer to the trees as part of a new application.
Many thanks,
Carolyn
———————————————————-
From: Legal Services
Sent: 23 October 2014 10:03
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
I suggest a few small changes:
I also attach a revised draft of Chapter 15 – Socio economic impacts with slight revisions to the figures in the table. I don’t have a copy of the final draft of the NTS so would be very grateful if Adam could add these figures into the NTS.
Many thanks
[Legal Services]
—————————————————-
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 23 October 2014 09:56
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba; [Legal Services]
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Dear Carolyn, Nik,
Ok, I would suggest the following is included variously in chapters 1, 4 and the NTS:
Subject to the outcome of this ES once considered Following consideration of the ES by Oxford City Council, full details of changes to the elevational treatments to the buildings [and the tree planting] suggested in option 1 in the Design Mitigation Strategy will be submitted in a new planning application at a later date. This would also include for all necessary pre-application consultation.
Please can you let me know if that is ok.
Best regards
Adam Boyden
**********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 22 October 2014 18:59
To: ‘Adam Boyden’
Cc: ‘Nicholas Pearson’; [Legal Services]; ‘Nik Lyzba’; ‘Sara Metcalfe’
Subject: RE: Confidential CastleMill
Dear Adam,
I agree with your suggested wording.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
————————————————–
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2014 11:41
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Legal Services; Nik Lyzba; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: RE: Confidential CastleMill
Dear Carolyn,
Thank you for your email.
I have amended Annex 1 to address your comments, please see attached a final version.
Re. condition 2, I have amended as you say.
Re. condition 17, I have added ‘The Energy Report, the NRIA template submitted with the planning application, and an update on the energy performance of the Energy Centre, are included as ES Appendices 3.6-3.8.’.
The issue of tree planting in the Badger run was discussed with all the City Council officers present at the meeting on 11 July 2014. Nicholas discussed the idea of planting trees in containers along the run. The [Oxford City Council] and [Tree Officer, Oxford City Council] questioned the sustainability of this approach and much preferred planting in open ground which would in their view be better for the trees and better for the Badgers. The ecologist on the project, Iain Corbyn of EcoConsult, has been consulted and responded positively that the Badgers will not be adversely affected. Natural England’s email response to me on 20 May 2014 made it very clear that NE did not wish to comment on the impacts of development of scope of the ES at this time, and would only do so if OCC asked them to (as they had no concerns at all). Michael CB confirmed at the meeting that the issue of badgers accessing the allotments could not be a planning issue/concern. I know the University has addressed [Resident’s] concern about badgers entering the allotments from the development site recently with the installation of Badger proofing of the fencing along the run and the gate. I understand that [Resident] may initially react to the planting proposal, because we have not told or asked [Resident] (or any other local consultee) about the DMS proposals, but we do not feel that there is any valid reason for [Resident] to object. I understand that [Resident’s] concerns may be that students or other local people (or even badgers?) could scale the trees to access the allotments, or that tree roots going under the fence may allow badgers to dig under it, but I would think that the badger-proof fencing around the allotments would remain robust and unaffected by the tree planting so [Resident’s] concerns may not remain for long. It may be that as with others we have heard from recently, [Resident] has not been involved further (after initial meetings) in what the ES has concluded and proposed as the DMS has had to remain completely confidential up to submission.
Nicholas may wish to add comment after he comes out of a meeting shortly.
I can mention the meeting with the Council officers, to cover this in the ES in chapter 3:
3.2.23 A number of meetings were held between members of the EIA team and officers of Oxford City Council in relation to the preparation of the ES. In particular, a meeting was held on 11 July 2014 with City Planning, Conservation, Landscape, Trees, Biodiversity, Archaeology, and Environmental Policy officers which discussed issues including: consultation and notification requirements for the ES, land contamination, ecology and Badgers, archaeology, heritage, landscape and visual effects (including potential viewpoints for assessment, and the View Cones study), and potential mitigation (including the potential for tree planting in the Badger run).
Best regards
Adam Boyden
————————————————————————-
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2014 09:31
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services ; Nik Lyzba
Cc: Nicholas Pearson
Subject: Confidential CastleMill
Dear Adam,
I have now reviewed the planning condition schedule and have a few comments.
I think the wording in the last sentence on Condition 2 is not quite right on the application and consultation process. I think that we are simply saying that any application will include the necessary pre-application consultation.
On Condition 17 is it right that this is only addressed in chapter 3?
I understand that there may be an issue on the badger run tree planting. Has the proposal been discussed at all with Natural England and the ecologists? Do we think the proposals will be objected to by any party including the allotment holders.
I would be grateful if you or Nicholas can brief me.
The level of concern being expressed by [Resident] is increasing and I do not understand why the allotments would object to the tree planting in the badger run.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
*****************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2014 18:47
To: Nik Lyzba; Adam Boyden; [Legal Services]
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Dear All,
I agree with Nik on the basis we will only start the planning application process if Option 1 has been accepted.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
—————————————————————————-
From: Nik Lyzba [mailto:nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2014 14:42
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Adam,
Is the University committed to change the building come what may or should the last part of your text note that “Subject to the outcome of this ES once considered by Oxford City Council, a….” ?
Nik Lyzba
——————————————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2014 14:36
To: Legal Services; Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Dear [Legal Services], Carolyn, Nik,
In a final edit to chapters 1 and 4, in order to be consistent with Annex 1 on the planning conditions, I would like to include the following as paragraphs 1.2.6 and 4.6.5 (amending previous 4.6.5), as it now seems more appropriate:
Full details of the tree planting proposed will be submitted to the City Council under planning conditions 5, 7 and 18 (see Annex 1). Full details of the changes to the buildings (in line with proposals in the Design Mitigation Strategy; see ES chapter 4 (section 4.6), chapter 7 and Appendix 7.2) will be submitted in a new planning application at a later date, and this would also include for all necessary pre-application consultation.
Best regards
Adam Boyden
**************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 22 October 2014 13:10
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Dear Adam,
There are no comments on chapter 9 or the appendices to Chapter 8. Can I confirm by the end of the day re Chpater 7 and the DMS? If you don’t hear from me, there are no comments.
Kind regards
[Legal Services]
——————————————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2014 11:59
To: Legal Services
Cc: Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Dear [Legal Services],
Thanks. I have addressed all the edits you requested in these.
I note there were no comments in this batch on chapters 7 or 9 or the Design Mitigation Strategy or appendices 7 and 8 (and previously no comments on chapters 2 or 4). Can you confirm that the University had no further comments on those? I need to know before we can go to print later today.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
*******************************
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 22 October 2014 11:45
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: RE: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford – Important Update
Dear Adam,
I have received no further information from Network Rail regarding their plans for the area to the rear of William Lucy Way, but happy to discuss any queries should you have any.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
—————————————–
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 20 October 2014 18:39
To: Adam Boyden; Asset and Space Management
Cc: Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: Re: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford – Important Update
Dear Adam,
I am copying [Asset and Space Management] but [Asset and Space Management] was away today unwell and therefore I am not sure if [Asset and Space Management] will pick this up.
I am afraid [Asset and Space Management] is the only person dealing with this at the University so our only other source would be Network Rail and I think you have their details.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
————————————————
On 20 Oct 2014, at 15:37, “Adam Boyden” <adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Carolyn,
Thank you, I see the article is online now,
Currently we refer to the NR plans briefly in chapters 2 and 3, and state, in ES, ch 7 LVIA:
7.7.5 The effects of the proposed Network Rail Great Western Mainline Electrification Project of the Network Rail mainline on the locality is addresses and assessed in the Environmental Statement December 2012 prepared by Atkins. Appendix Figure OXFD 17.2 Trackside Vegetation Clearance, (sheets 6 of 7 and 7 of 7) shows that the Vegetation Clearance Buffer of 6.6m cuts through the edge of the extant tree vegetation which edges the railway corridor between Walton Well bridge and Castle Mill Stream, The extant woodland between the east edge of the railway corridor and the William Lucy Way development is minimally if at all affected. Northwards of Walton Well bridge, there is localised edge canopy reduction on either side of the railway line. There will be some limited and localised change to the extent of that tree canopy adjacent to/south of Walton Well bridge which currently contributes to the backdrop of the extant development, being part of the green urban edge. The overhead electrification lines and associated gantries and infrastructure will generally be concealed by the extant development, and Options 1, 2 and 3, in views from the northwest, west and south west, but will be variously visible from urban located eastern viewpoints, in the context of the extant railway corridor. On the basis of information available, it is not considered that these vegetation clearance works will materially affect the findings of the assessment of landscape and visual effects as made in this LVIA chapter.
So that we are up to date with any more specific plans Network Rail have for the wooded area in between WLW and the site, it would be best to obtain clarification from Network Rail, so is it ok to contact [Asset and Space Management] or others for more info?
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
*********************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 21 October 2014 17:59
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
Adam,
I have spoke to the QS regarding the cost of reproviding the accommodation lost as a result of Option 3. He has estimated the cost to be circa £7.5million (including an allowance for fees and VAT) plus the cost to purchase the land. This is to provide the same number and size of flats as would be lost, as well as the requisite ancillary accommodation (i.e. laundry, cycle sheds, etc.) As we do not have any figures for the purchase of land, I recommend that it be excluded. I will receive the detail to the QS’s calculations later this evening, and at that time will be able to provide any further detail.
I hope that this is helpful, but please contact me with any questions.
Regards,
[Capital Projects]
———————————————-
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 21 October 2014 17:30
To: Legal Services
Cc: Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe; Carolyn Puddicombe; Nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Remaining EIA chapters – Strictly confidential
[Legal Services]
Thanks. I will review and finalise the chapters for printing.
Can you confirm if there are any comments on chapter 7, and appendices 7 and 8 including the DMS and LVIA montages and figures, as we need to start to print these tomorrow.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
***********************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 21 October 2014 12:14
To: Nik Lyzba
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Adam Boyden; Legal Services; Estates Services; Iain Nicholson at PRBI
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Nik,
It would not include land costs beyond a standard estimate – is there a more accurate way that this could be derived?
[Capital Projects]
————————————————————————-
From: Nik Lyzba [mailto:nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk]
Sent: 21 October 2014 11:59
To: Capital Projects
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Adam Boyden; Nik Lyzba; Legal Services; Estates Services; Iain Nicholson at PRBI
Subject: Re: Confidential – Castle Mill
Will it also include a land cost?
Nik Lyzba
Sent from my iPhone
*************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 21 October 2014 11:39
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Adam Boyden; ‘nik Lyzba’; Legal Services
Cc: Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Carolyn,
The QS will prepare a high level preliminary estimate of reproviding the accommodation lost if Option 3 was implemented, including the ancillary spaces (i.e. laundry, cycle facilities, etc) on a different site. What it would not include for is the cost of running a separate facility (i.e. separate caretaking staff, etc.) He will get this back to us today.
[Capital Projects]
*********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 21 October 2014 09:08
To: Adam Boyden; ‘nik Lyzba’; Capital Projects; Legal Services
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI
Subject: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
I am concerned as to whether we have got the costs correct for the various mitigation options in Chapter 15.
When reviewing the draft Q&As to enable the University to be prepared when the document is published, one of the questions is why are we not pursuing Option 3 when the difference in cost between Options 2 and 3 is “so small”.
I wonder if we are correctly portraying the costs for Option 3.
Should the costs for Option 3 not only include the works to the building itself, but also the costs which the University would acquire if it needed to re-provide these units both in terms of land acquisition and construction costs. There would also be the loss of income during the intervening period.
I would be very grateful if you could review this and in particular if [Capital Projects] could consider this and advise us of [Capital Projects’] views and whether we can indeed amend the costs and if so how we should do so.
I appreciate that we are due to sign the chapters off today/tomorrow to enable the printing to take place, and therefore hope that this can be picked up.
If you have any queries please let me know. I am in a number of meetings today, and therefore if you need to track me down, could you please let [Asset and Space Management] and/or [Asset and Space Management] know.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
**********************************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 20 October 2014 15:12
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; ‘nik Lyzba’; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Confidential – Correspondence
Dear Adam,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
Thank you for your email below, which I have now had an opportunity to consider and respond to the queries you have raised.
[Redacted – Outside scope]
I have copied Nik in so that he is aware of the query being raised regarding the 2002 and 2011 planning permissions. Could Nik please consider this and advise me accordingly. I am not sure however if this should now be added in to the chapter on planning to ensure that we have indeed addressed all the queries CPRE have raised, which is what Adam says in his draft below.
[Redacted – Outside scope]
With regards to attaching the notes of the consultee meetings, I do not have any objection to them being included in the ES, as long as they have already been shared with those who attended the meetings and if they asked for any amendments that these have been incorporated. I do not want anything to be included which could be challenged.
I have not had an opportunity to discuss my notes above or your email with [Legal Services] who may have further comments.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
——————————————————————–
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2014 14:44
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: FW: Port Meadow ES
Dear Carolyn, [Legal Services],
[Redacted – Outside scope]
Should we also draw Nik’s attention to their point about the 2002 permission and ask him to review the validity of their assertion?
Please also see attached a table which I would like to include in ES chapter 3 which sets out the main points raised by each consultee in response to the Scoping letter and how the ES deals with them, and a collection of notes of all the consultee meetings we have had with consultees. Please can you let me know any comments and if you agree they should be included in the ES. We do not propose sending that to Sietske or others in advance, as it would appear out of context with the ES, which they would need to read to understand the table.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
[Redacted – Outside scope]
********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 20 October 2014 15:07
To: Adam Boyden; Sara Metcalfe
Cc: Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: FW: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford – Important Update
Dear Adam,
Please see the email below by way of update regarding Network rail.
I understand there is an article in the Oxford Times today on this and the residents’ concerns.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
———————————————
From: Paul Goffin
Sent: 15 October 2014 16:16
To: Asset and Space Management
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: RE: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford – Important Update
Thanks for the helpful update [Asset and Space Management].
Clearly this sounds as if it is to be a fairly extensive proposal. No doubt we will be kept informed as we are also a neighbour.
Best wishes,
Paul
————————————-
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 15 October 2014 15:53
To: Paul Goffin
Subject: FW: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford – Important Update
Importance: High
Dear Paul,
Just to keep you updated:
Network Rail (Communications) have now confirmed that there is a Route Modernisation Project which includes the enhancement of the Western Route, mainly involving signalling and works associated with electrification, which will impact on the subject land. Their Comms Team are unaware of the details of the project and have requested these from the Route Modernisation Team, before engaging the community. Network Rail (NR) have advised that they appreciate that they will have to consult the community regarding plans and to undertake environmental assessments regarding impact etc.
The NR Comms Team are clearly embarrassed at the lack of communication between the different sections of NR.
The WLWRA is very concerned regarding the discovery of the NR project and the implications for the land to the rear of their properties, citing that it would be an environmental disaster. There is a nervousness regarding any construction so close to their homes and associated loss of tree cover, as well as flooding.
Members of the WLWRA will be contacting Nicola Blackwood MP and the Port Meadow campaign and NR are being pressed for a meeting.
WLWRA members have expressed their thanks for the continued assistance received from and persistence provided by the University to date.
Best wishes,
Asset and Space Management
———————————————–
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 15 October 2014 09:27
To: Paul Goffin
Subject: FW: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford
Importance: High
Dear Paul,
As I reported at Section Heads, I was due to meet with NR and a representative of the WLWRA tomorrow morning on site.
Out of the blue, I have received (during my absence in London yesterday) the e-mail below. I am going to have to report this to the WLWRA, but wished you to be aware. The NR representative has since cancelled the meeting.
I have requested that the meeting still goes ahead regardless and will advise the WLWRA accordingly. I have tried to contact [NR Community Relations Manager] this morning by telephone (through the myriad of options etc), and have been informed that he is not in the office as yet. I will follow up with an e-mail.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
—————————————————————
From: Network Rail Community Relations Manager
Sent: 14 October 2014 15:11
To: Asset and Space Management
Subject: Proposed planting adjoining Castle Mill Stream – University of Oxford
Dear [Asset and Space Management]
I write to you concerning the above.
I firstly wanted to acknowledge that you should have been put in contact with our asset protection team sooner than you were, following your initial dialogue with our maintenance representatives. Our asset protection team are best placed to provide guidance and advice on proposals such yours, and to interface with the relevant route contacts on your behalf.
Following your submission of the development form, your proposal was reviewed by key parties in the Western route and, regrettably, the land in question is to be used for new infrastructure and construction compounds; any planting at this location cannot therefore be supported at this time.
I understand that a meeting has been arranged for Thursday, 16 October to review matters. At this stage I would suggest that there is little value in moving forward with this, though we do recognise the sensitivities at this location and the need to work closely with the University and other interested parties as our proposed railway works progress in the area.
I accept that this is not the news you were hoping for but you can contact me directly with any further queries or concerns and I will do my best to help you.
Kind Regards
Network Rail Community Relations Manager
***********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 18 October 2014 16:29
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: Fwd: eco consult report
Dear Adam,
Please can you consider Paul’s question below and advise me of the answer.
Can you also advise if this has been resolved and how it has been picked up in the ecology chapter.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
*********************************
From: Paul Goffin
Date: 10 October 2014 09:38:16 BST
To: Carolyn Puddicombe <carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk>, Legal Services
Cc: Capital Projects
Subject: RE: eco consult report
Dear Carolyn,
Thanks for that.
Is the lack of access going to cause a weakness in the EIA? I was under the impression that we could arrange access with the Allotment Association as and when we needed it.
Best,
Paul.
—————————
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 October 2014 09:33
To: Paul Goffin; Legal Services
Cc: Capital Projects
Subject: RE: eco consult report
Dear Paul,
Many thanks and fine by me.
Whilst writing, just to note that we have not been able to access the allotments for part of the EIA work.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801
——————————————–
From: Paul Goffin
Sent: 10 October 2014 09:08
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Cc: Capital Projects
Subject: RE: eco consult report
Dear Both,
Just so you are aware, I’m proposing to correct [Resident]’s perception of where we are with this. Let me know if you have any comments.
BW,
Paul.
Dear [Resident],
Thanks for the email.
Just to be clear regarding our previous conversations and emails, we are not going to be in a position of letting any individual or group have an early sight of any part of the EIA.
As soon as the EIA is available, i.e. on the day that it is produced and delivered to the City Council, we will ensure that you receive a copy on that day. We are proposing to provide you with a CD-ROM as it is too large to send electronically and it will be easier for you to search for the relevant parts – if you could let me have a contact address then we will ensure that it is delivered to you.
If you have any queries once you receive it then please do come back to us.
Paul Goffin BSc MSc FRICS
Director of Estates
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 278755 E: paulf.goffin@admin.ox.ac.uk
……………………………………………
From: Resident
Sent: 08 October 2014 17:20
To: Capital Projects; Paul Goffin
Subject: eco consult report
I am concerned that there is increased activity and interest re badgers and Cripley Meadow and an imminent EIA. You both agreed we should see the eco consult report before it was published in this and whilst they apparently did it months ago we have still had no feedback.. We will not want to read about Cripley Meadow in the report without being aware before of the content. We note the badger group comment that the badger hotel and run are not in use and Sushila’s recent letter queries if they are even alive. Please can we see the eco consult report as agreed.
[Resident]
*********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 17 October 2014 17:02
To: ‘Adam Boyden’
Cc: ‘Nicholas Pearson’; ‘Sara Metcalfe’; ‘Edd Medlicott’; Legal Services; ‘nik Lyzba’
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Adam,
Thank you and I am happy with the drafting.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
——————————————————-
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 17 October 2014 15:52
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; Legal Services; nik Lyzba
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Carolyn,
In relation to our discussion on your point 25 below, and also Rupert’s point 10 of his recent comments note, please see the current final text from chapter 5 section 5.1 which explains why we are not considering demolishing and starting again, and why the alternative mitigation options are not described as ‘main alternatives’ in chapter 5. Please can you let me know asap if you consider further edits are necessary here.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The EIA Regulations require an ES to include ‘an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant … and an indication the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects’.
5.1.2 This chapter therefore describes in section 5.2 the alternative options for development that were considered by the University in the planning and design of the student residential accommodation development at the Castle Mill site, and the reasons for their rejection, including any consideration of relevant environment effects.
5.1.3 The potential for demolishing the current development and redeveloping the site in accordance with the previous planning permission (described in section 5.2 and chapter 6), which would provide fewer bedspaces) was also not re-assessed, as it was not considered practical at this stage due to the likely impacts on the University’s student accommodation, and because the original permission was rejected by the University in 2011 as it no longer met their accommodation requirements at that time for the reasons set out in section 5.2 below.
5.1.4 Alternative options for the mitigation of environmental effects, through new design changes to the development, have been considered in the Design Mitigation Strategy which is included in Appendix 7.2 and summarised in ES section 4.6. At the time the development was formulated and the planning application submitted, these future mitigation proposals were not main alternatives considered by the applicants, so are not considered to be within the ‘main alternatives’ described in this chapter of the ES.
******************************************************************
From: Building Services
Sent: 17 October 2014 14:23
To: Legal Services; Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nik Lyzba; Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: RE: Castle Mill
[Legal Services],
You are correct. The 45% saving is the saving of CO2 which is well in excess of what was originally declared, confirming that no PV is required. As previously discussed, PV will reduce the CHP running hours, so must not be installed.
Regards
[Building Services]
****************************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 17 October 2014 13:58
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nik Lyzba; Building Services; Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: RE: Castle Mill
Dear Adam,
I believe the grey shaded area in line 21 of the attached report sets out the CO2 reduction figure and assesses this at 45%. This is in excess of the figures quoted in the NRIA.
Many thanks
[Legal Services]
————————————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 17 October 2014 13:55
To: Legal Services; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nik Lyzba; Building Services; Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: RE: Castle Mill
Dear [Legal Services],
Thanks for the spreadsheet. As I am not able to translate the energy use figures into CO2 reduction figures as set out in the original Energy Report, and as no update text has been forthcoming from Frankhams, I have added the following text in red into ES chapter 3 on Energy:
- An Energy Report was submitted with the planning application, and is included as ES Appendix 3.6. Energy efficiency and renewable energy measures were also discussed in the Natural Resources Impact Analysis checklist (see ES Appendix 3.7) submitted with the planning application. The Energy Report responded to the requirements in the Oxford Local Plan and the Natural Resource Impact Analysis Supplementary Planning Document (2006), and set out to demonstrate that the development would ‘include energy conservation measures based on good thermal and lighting building practices that will reduce the total carbon dioxide emissions by 14.3% compared to the existing structure baseline, and clean energy technologies that will reduce the carbon dioxide emissions by a further 20%.’ to meet their requirements.
- The Energy Report contains an energy demand assessment that shows how the proposals include efficiency measures that reduce the total carbon dioxide emissions and clean energy systems (a Combined Heat & Power plant that supplies both electricity and hot water / space heating) that reduce the total carbon dioxide emissions further. The report also states that should the required level of carbon reduction not be attained by these measures, solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels would be the most likely renewable energy technology able to assist in carbon reduction, and the planning application allowed for the installation of solar PV panels to be installed on four south-facing roofs (see drawing A-004 in Appendix 4.1). The PV panels have not been installed.
- Further analysis has been undertaken recently on the operational energy performance of the CHP plant. The spreadsheet included in Appendix 3.8 suggests that the CHP plant provides 60% of the energy demand for the development (providing 1,132,692 kWh of the total site energy demand of 1,892,662 kWh). The University considers it likely that the CHP plant alone is providing sufficient energy to reduce the total carbon dioxide emissions by the required level as set out in the Energy Report and NRIA checklist, and that it is not now necessary to install any additional renewable energy sources such as the PV panels.
If you have any comments on this please let me know asap this afternoon. If an assessment can be made after all, of the CO2 reduction provided by the CHP, against the Energy Report and NRIA checklist, by the University or Frankhams, please can you provide that next week and I can insert it here before final print run.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
******************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 16 October 2014 16:12
To: Nicholas Pearson
Cc: Legal Services; Asset and Space Management; Sara Metcalfe; Adam Boyden
Subject: RE: 10717: ES document headings for cover pages etc
Dear Nicholas,
Many thanks.
We think it should be –
- University of Oxford
- Castle Mill Graduate Accommodation.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————
From: Nicholas Pearson [mailto:nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 16 October 2014 12:10
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Legal Services; Asset and Space Management; Sara Metcalfe; Adam Boyden
Subject: 10717: ES document headings for cover pages etc
Dear Carolyn
I want to be quite sure that the many documents being produced have the correct title and are consistent one with another. I propose the following for your approval:
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
CASTLE MILL STUDENT RESIDENCES
Thereafter, the relevant title for the particular document, such as ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT etc. Date to be October 2014
However, do you want the following additional lines inserted or not?
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
ESTATES SERVICES
CASTLE MILL STUDENT RESIDENCES
ROGER DUDMAN WAY, OXFORD
Thereafter, the relevant title for the particular document such as ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT etc. Date to be October 2014
Please let me know what you prefer, or any changes to the above.
Best wishes
Nicholas
***********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 16 October 2014 16:05
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Subject: FW: Confidential – Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear Adam and [Legal Services],
I am not sure I understand Michael’s email below – please can you advise if we need to do anything else to try and resolve this.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
————————————————————————-
From: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael [mailto:mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk]
Sent: 16 October 2014 08:54
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Adam
You also enquired about the same matter when you reminded me that at a meeting in July that Mai Jarvis agreed to get back to you in relation to any approval that Emily Green may have given in relation to the Energy Centre stack height and air quality (Clean Air Act) legislation.
Mai Jarvis has confirmed that as she remembers it, the University changed the stack height under a de-minimis amendment which she was not consulted on. She recalls that [Environmental Development Officer] had commented on the original application with the higher stack height, but she was not consulted on the decision to reduce the stack height.
Michael Crofton-Briggs
Head of City Development
T: 01865 252360
******************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 14 October 2014 15:46
To: Nicholas Pearson; Adam Boyden; Sara Metcalfe; ‘Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk)’; Edd Medlicott; Nik Lyzba
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; Communications; Asset and Space Management
Subject: Confidential
Dear All,
[Redacted – Outside scope]
- Draft of the non-technical summary. I am being put under increasing pressure by colleagues at the University for a sight of this document, and I do not wish to circulate it until I have had an opportunity with [Legal Services] to review it and comment accordingly. I anticipate it also needs to be reviewed by Rupert Warren.
[Redacted – Outside scope]
Could Adam please confirm that he has responsibility to ensure that all final amendments are indeed incorporated into the documents. I am keen to ensure that those put forward by Rupert Warren and identified by [Legal Services] and me are being and will be picked up.
I am particularly keen to ensure that the point raised by Rupert Warren which I emailed you regarding earlier today in respect of the West Area Planning Committee quote regarding “ameliorate” etc has been addressed. I think that this needs to be reviewed with Rupert Warren in the light of his amendment and whether in fact he considers the draft put forward by Adam over the weekend should be included or not. As such, this needs to be co-ordinated such that [Legal Services] can seek his advice accordingly as a matter of urgency.
[Redacted – Outside scope]
Best wishes,
Carolyn
**************************************************
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 14 October 2014 09:35
To: Nik Lyzba
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; ‘Iain at PRBI’; Legal Services
Subject: Confidential – Castle Mill – Composition of top floors of Phase II
Dear Nik
In order that the impact of a loss of units at Castle Mill can be assessed, and therefore impact on the community, please find below the composition of the top floors of Phase II Castle Mill for your consideration.
Block D
7 x 1 bed
2 x studio
Block E
5 x 1 bed
1 x 2 bed
Block F
2 x couple studios
3 x 1 bed
1 x 1 bed
Block G
3 x 1 bed
1 x 2 bed
Block H
7 x single studios
2 x sm couple studios
Block J
3 x 1 bed flat
1 x 2 bed flat
Block K
3 x 1 bed flat
1 x 2 bed flat
Block L
7 x single studios
2 x sm couples studios
There is only one unit not currently let.
Also, please find attached the analysis with rent totals for top floors per block, split by type of accommodation.
Kind regards
Asset and Space Management
****************************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 13 October 2014 10:38
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: EMAIL 4 of 4
Dear Adam,
Last attachment, apologies again for the email overload.
Please find attached the final, part 4 of the Ground Water and Vapour Testing Reports which are to make up the remaining appendices for Chapter 10.
Many Thanks,
[Legal Services]
*******************************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 13 October 2014 10:36
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: EMAIL 3 of 4
Dear Adam,
Please find part 3 of the Ground Water and Vapour Testing Report,
Many Thanks,
[Legal Services]
**********************************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 13 October 2014 10:35
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: EMAIL 2 of 4
Dear Adam,
Please find attached part 2 of the Ground Water and Vapour Testing Report,
Many Thanks,
[Legal Services]
***********************************************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 13 October 2014 10:33
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: EMAIL 1 of 4 Castle Mill ES – number of ESs needed – Appendices
Dear Adam,
Please find attached part 1 of the Ground Water and Vapour Testing Report
Many Thanks,
[Legal Services]
********************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 13 October 2014 09:52
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nik Lyzba; Building Services; Capital Projects
Subject: FW: Castle Mill
Dear Adam
Please find attached a spreadsheet on the operation on the CHP plant which suggests that it is at 60% which is way in excess of the requirement for 20% energy delivered by low and zero carbon sources and so it is not necessary to install any additional renewable energy sources such as the PVs.
I have copied Nik Lyzba in in case he has discovered any additional commitments made on the planning side which need to be addressed.
Kind regards
[Legal Services]
——————————————————————————
From: Engineer, Frankham Consultancy Group
Sent: 10 October 2014 18:14
To: Legal Services; Capital Projects
Cc: Frankham Consultancy Group
Subject: Castle Mill
| Dear [Legal Services] and [Capital Projects],
Please find attached spreadsheet summarising the site energy and CO2 data.
The total site energy demand is 1,892,662 kWh and the total CHP energy contribution is 1,132,692 kWh, thus the proportion of energy supplied by the CHP system is 60%.
I will be away on holiday all of next week but will be available to address any queries you may have on my return on October 20th.
|
Regards
Engineer, Frankham Consultancy Group
*****************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 13 October 2014 07:49
To: ‘Nik Lyzba’; ‘edd@orme-architecture.com’
Cc: Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Legal Services
Subject: RE: Castle Mill
Dear Edd,
I agree with Nik on the basis I am not sure whether ‘considerable’ is referring to the development or light generally.
It is also worth noting that at one of the WAPC meetings the objectors displayed photos taken at night and claimed that all the light pollution was caused by Castle Mill and did not acknowledge the huge glow of Oxford lit up generally at night so can this point be picked up as necessary.
In addition when the communal area blinds are working there is a further reduction.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
———————————————————-
From: Nik Lyzba [mailto:nik.lyzba@virgin.net]
Sent: 12 October 2014 18:15
To: edd@orme-architecture.com; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Castle Mill
Further to Edd’s DMS changes in relation to lighting could I ask whether in the Assessment of the development we need to have the word “considerable” in the last sentence of Height and Scale (page 17)? Should it not simply note that domestic lights can be seen in certain views including at higher level?
Kind regards.
Nik Lyzba
**********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 11 October 2014 09:41
To: Adam Boyden; Andrew Mackie
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk); Legal Services; Capital Projects; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; nik Lyzba; Asset and Space Management
Subject: Re: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Adam,
Thank you for your replies.
I understand and agree that you detail the option the University is offering in the ES. As such the document should keep Appendix 1.8 which I will review this weekend.
I am not sure it is necessary for the University to review the chapters again unless there are substantial changes and I would not want the submission to be delayed by a week in particular in view of potential criticism about the time for consultation.
I am not sure if we have been able to resolve the energy report and hope [Legal Services] can advise on Monday and also update on the borehole tests.
I will email the Council on Monday on the chimney.
I am not sure the Council is intending to notify any parties that we have submitted the ES so can you please clarify your point below and the reference to the Council and the VG report and interested parties.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
*********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 October 2014 09:31
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk); Legal Services; Capital Projects; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; nik Lyzba; Asset and Space Management
Subject: Re: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Adam,
Many thanks.
I think it is better to address this now in the ES on the basis I am sure that it would be picked up if we don’t.
On this basis I am happy with the wording.
I am copying Andrew Mackie, General Counsel at the University as he is reviewing the documents this weekend.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
———————————————-
On 10 Oct 2014, at 17:15, “Adam Boyden” <adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Carolyn,
Apologies, I need to amend my response to point 29 to remove ‘and 3’ from the first part of the last sentence, as follows:
Through consideration of Options 1, 2 and 3, the University has considered how to ameliorate the size and impact of the development, in line with the request from Oxford City Council’s West Area Planning Committee in February 2013 (see paragraph 1.1.19). Option 1 would attempt to ameliorate the impacts of the development through changing the appearance of the buildings, and Options 2 and 3 attempt to ameliorate and reduce the size of the buildings
Regards
Adam
—————————————–
From: Adam Boyden
Sent: 10 October 2014 17:12
To: ‘Carolyn Puddicombe’
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; ‘Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk)’; Legal Services; Capital Projects; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; ‘nik Lyzba’; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Carolyn,
Thanks for the responses. I will go through each email in turn.
On your responses below,
1 – Blinds: Thanks. I will need to state as such in the ES in chapter 4.
1 & 17 – Statement in chapter 4 from University on option proposed: I was assuming you are happy to include the brief statement in chapter 4 (para 4.6.3: ‘The University proposes to undertake design mitigation measures 1 and 2 as included in Option 1 set out in the Design Mitigation Strategy’). I just thought that we would need to briefly explain the reasons for that in the ES. A point considered at the penultimate Con was that the ES needs to describe the reasons for including or rejecting the main alternatives, including the environmental effects, so I do not want our ES to fall foul of that legal requirement.
Appendix 1.8 (planning conditions table) is the other main reference to option 1 being chosen as (as instructed by Counsel) it only discusses the status of conditions if option 1 is progressed. We could remove appendix 1.8 from the ES and submit it with the covering letter on planning conditions after the ES goes in (points 3, 4, 8, 18).
1 – Acceptable in Planning – I have discussed with Nik this afternoon and we agreed minor text changes to address this.
1 – Contamination test results. I have received the vapour test report as testing is finished now, which I will ask Stuart Macmillan to reflect in chapter 10. I do not have anything recent on the groundwater yet (awaited).
5, 6, 7, 12, 15 – I look forward to receiving the Energy Report update and any further comments on the ES from Counsel, and comments on Appx 1.8 (if still needed) and the chimney height, and will send you the NTS and amended chapters, on Monday.
If there are substantial edits needed to figures and text, given the time required to print, we may need to postpone submission by a week.
9 & 11 – text now included in chapter 3.
[Redacted – Outside scope]
25 – Yes I could add text to chapter 5 and the end of section 5.2:
As a result of the assessment of the environmental effects of the development in this ES, practical options for the additional mitigation of the environmental effects of the development, in particular in relation to landscape and visual effects and effects on the historic environment, have been identified and assessed and are set out in ES sections 4.6 and 4.7 and Appendix 7.2. The potential for demolishing the current development and redeveloping the site in accordance with the previous planning permission (described in paragraphs 5.2.4-6 above, which would provide 85 fewer student bedspaces) was not re-assessed, as it was not considered practical at this stage due to the likely costs involved and the impacts on the University’s student accommodation, and because the original permission was rejected by the University in 2011 as it no longer met their accommodation requirements at that time for the reasons set out in paragraphs 5.2.7-13 above.
29 – Yes I could add these words to chapter 4:
Through consideration of Options 1, 2 and 3, the University has considered how to ameliorate the size and impact of the development, in line with the request from Oxford City Council’s West Area Planning Committee in February 2013 (see paragraph 1.1.19). Options 1 and 3 would attempt to ameliorate the impacts of the development through changing the appearance of the buildings, and Options 2 and 3 attempt to ameliorate and reduce the size of the buildings
[Redacted – Outside scope]
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
****************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 October 2014 13:05
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; ‘Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk)’; Legal Services; Capital Projects; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; ‘nik Lyzba’; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Adam,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
Thank you for your answers to my email below.
I set down below my responses and further queries. I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to type these in blue in an effort to differentiate them!
I have also added in the updates from the University position where possible.
I appreciate this is beginning to be a lengthy email but think it is important we continue to keep everybody briefed.
[Legal Services] and I met earlier this morning and have identified a further 30 actions which need to be taken forward and I will copy you in accordingly.
Best wishes
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————————–
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 09 October 2014 17:34
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; ‘Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk)’; Legal Services; Capital Projects; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; ‘nik Lyzba’; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear Carolyn,
Thanks for your queries, I can respond below each point in red.
- There are a number of items in the documents which we received on Monday which include for example “check”, are still highlighted etc. Could Adam please advise when these will be completed such that the document is in its final form. ACTION: Adam
Amendments to text are needed by early next week. Please let us know if you have any specific edits or queries.
Issues to ‘check’ are:
– energy report / NRIA update in chapter 3 (see point 5 below);
– para 4.5.12: have the electronic blinds been correctly and fully installed? Can you confirm?
They have been fully installed. We are having certain issues in terms of their operation due to timers not working. This was discussed in the meeting yesterday and it was stressed to the Project Manager this must be resolved as a matter of urgency.
– para 4.6.3: statement to be added or appended from University to state which option it proposes – can you provide?
Do we have to include in the ES the statement as to which option the University proposes or can this simply be set down in a separate letter submitted with the ES.
– Paras 6.5.15/17/19: the word ‘acceptable’ I need to agree with Nik whether or not this is a suitable word for the ES as normally it is restricted in use to a Planning Statement as ESs have to be objective.
– para 9.7.4: I have asked Iain Corbyn to comment on any implications for ecology of option 3 floor removal;
– paras 10.4.11/13: I have asked Stuart Macmillan to provide test results for inclusion, if these are not forthcoming they will need to be left out of the ES.
My colleague [Legal Services] is arranging for the test information to be submitted to you. I hope this will be with you by the end of today/early Monday.
– Section 12.8 Summary of transport chapter to be added, and with NTS
- Could Adam please liaise with [Capital Projects] and advise if there is any information still outstanding from the consultant team involved in the construction of Castle Mill.
ACTION: Adam and [Capital Projects]
Energy Report / NRIA update still awaited – please see point 5 below.
Response below.
- Could Adam and Nick please advise if they consider the position is clear with regards to the conditions attached to the planning permission and whether all the information required has been submitted to the City Council to enable them to be considered at Committee. ACTION: Adam and Nik
ES Appendix 1.8 shows that conditions 4 (management controls), 5 (landscape plan), 9 (control of car parking), 10 (student car ownership), 11 (noise), 13 (CCTV), 16 (land contamination), 18 (management of Badger sett), and 22 (public art) should be considered at Committee after the ES is submitted (new information is submitted for condition 5 which will need cross referencing for conditions 7 and 18, but info for conditions 4,9,10,11,13,16,18 and 22 had already been submitted). Nicholas is preparing a maintenance schedule to go with the new tree planting plan, which will also satisfy condition 7 (landscape management plan). Condition 17 (Natural Resource Impact Analysis) is discharged but I consider needs a revised submission to approve the change from part-reliance on PV to no PV, so that is currently outstanding (but see point 5 below). Submissions made previously under conditions 12 (vibration), 15 (drainage) were already approved. Details submitted under conditions 2 (plans), 3 (materials), 20 (construction management plan) and 21 (construction travel plan) were already approved, but new details will be needed through a new planning application for the design mitigation works.
Thank you for the update. I am going to review Appendix 1.8 carefully over the weekend. Clearly it is critical that the table is correct but that we then address as soon as the EIA has been submitted what needs to be done to submit the outstanding information to enable the conditions to be discharged.
4 [Redacted – outside scope]
- There is also a degree of uncertainty as to whether all information that needs to be submitted to discharge Condition 17 has been submitted and whether in fact a further report is required to enable the Committee to consider the discharge. ACTION: Adam
Energy report update (see also point 2 above) – I still await an update to the Energy Report (2011) on the performance of the CHP and need for PV, as previously discussed, to enable a discussion of the change to the current NRIA Template (which was submitted and approved under condition 17). I have talked to [Capital Projects] and [Senior Mechanical Engineer] (Frankhams) and have had several email correspondence with University staff but have not had any update. An energy specialist needs to provide data from the performance of the CHP to back up a statement that PVs are not to be installed and why they are not required to achieve the approved scoring under the NRIA template, as the CHP is understood to be performing sufficiently with the evidence to show that PVs are not needed. Please can you let me know where things are with this. Condition 17 (Natural Resource Impact Analysis) requires compliance with the submitted NRIA Template which referred to, and planning drawings showed, PV panels on roofs. Currently it is a loose end which has to be closed off somehow but if no update is forthcoming we will just have to say the minimum in the ES, and this will require work subsequently.
My colleague [Capital Projects] has been asked to liaise with Frankhams today as [Capital Projects] is away unwell. I hope therefore that this will be resolved and the information provided to you by Monday morning.
- I need to check the various emails I have sent following the conferences with Counsel to ensure that the queries which were raised have been addressed. I will ask [Asset and Space Management] to assist on this. ACTION: CAP and [Asset and Space Management]
I await your advice.
I have not yet reviewed my queries and will do so over the weekend.
- Energy Centre flue/chimney – following email correspondence yesterday afternoon I think that Adam has clarified the position. In view of this, I need to raise this with Michael Crofton-Briggs. ACTION: CAP
I await your advice.
I have received your advice and discussed this with [Legal Services]. I will be drafting an email to send to Michael Crofton-Briggs over the weekend.
- As mentioned above we need to agree what material is required and how it is to be submitted to ensure that the conditions can be considered at Committee and discharged. My inclination is that we deal with this as a separate submission after the EIA has been submitted and I would be grateful if Adam could advise accordingly. ACTION: Adam and Nik
Yes, that is a sensible idea. Once the ES is submitted, we should prepare a separate covering letter to set out which planning conditions need to be discharged and to include the new information submitted in the ES together with Appendix 1.8 or a text description of what enables the council to now discharge which condition.
As above, I think we are all agreed that we will pick up the conditions discharge separately we just need to make sure that Appendix 1.8 and the supporting text is accurate.
- There is no reference in the EIA as to whether or not any objections were submitted to the application which was approved and has now been constructed. The EIA only refers to the lack of public consultation. Should there be some acknowledgement of any public responses to the application. ACTION: Adam and Nik
I can add a brief statement into chapter 3 after para 3.2.14, to state that no objections were received from statutory consultees, and that a number of comments and objections were received from local residents and the Cripley Meadows Allotments Association, which are described in the WAPC report to committee Feb 2012 (see Appendix 1.1A). N.B.The concerns raised by the internal Council officer responses from Conservation Officer (Nick Worlledge) and Archaeology (David Radford) were not referred to in the planning officer’s report (although some of Nick’s comments were copied in, important parts (his objection) were left out). I could also copy attached the extract from the WAPC Feb 2012 report into the chapter, but this may just highlight again that two important officer responses were not included.
I agree that you should add a brief statement in Chapter 3 to state that no objections were received from the statutory consultees and that a number of comments and objections were received from the local residents, associations etc. I do not think we need to attach the extract from the West Area Planning Committee February 2014 report into the chapter on the basis it is an appendix.
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- Paragraph 3.3.7 refers to difficulties with regards to baseline information. Does this need to be explained in that the information is not available because on the basis the application was considered to be not EIA development, no surveys were undertaken. ACTION: Adam
I can add the following to 3.3.7: This includes information on the pre-development landscape character, views from a number of viewpoints, and the setting of heritage assets. Such information is not available because on the basis the application was considered to be not EIA development, some surveys were not undertaken. However, as much information as possible has been taken from available sources, including submitted reports and members of local community groups.
Agreed and I think you should add in the sentence you have suggested.
- I confirm that [Legal Services] has sent to Rupert and Sasha a set of the EIA itself, but not the appendices. Could Adam please advise who is going to check that all pages in the final version are “clean”, gaps have been completed, highlighting removed etc. ACTION: Adam
I await your advice on your timescale for commenting on the ES and approving us to go to print. I and Sara will undertake a final check of all materials to be printed by reviewing a whole printed copy.
I hope to be able to confirm on Monday that the University will be submitting the Environmental Statement. We are waiting on final sign off by Rupert Warren who I understand is reviewing the documents over the weekend and the University itself.
- Could Adam please ensure that the font in all chapters is the same. At present Chapter 8, is not. ACTION: Adam/Simon
Yes, this was due to a pdf document being printed from rather than a Word doc. We will obtain a Word doc from NPP shortly.
Noted
- Non-technical summary – I am increasingly concerned that we do not yet have the draft document. It is important for the University to see it to understand its content, length etc in terms of how this is going to be used and to assist in terms of our preparing for the submission. Could Adam please confirm if possible by the end of today when a draft will be with the University. ACTION: Adam
I am putting this together as a simple stand alone brochure and will send you the draft NTS by end Monday.
I thought you had agreed in an earlier email to submit the NTS to me by the end of today, but it is essential please that I receive it on Monday.
- I am reviewing with colleagues who will undertake the final sign off of the EIA.
ACTION: CAP
I await your advice on this and your timescale for signing the ES off.
As mentioned above, we are looking to sign off the ES on Monday to enable printing to commence. [Legal Services] will be liaising with you in advance of that with any queries [Legal Services] has picked up and also to address the appendices.
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- We need to establish the University’s position and which option it is going to put forward as part of the submission. ACTION: [Legal Services] and CAP
A statement or summary of the University’s position needs to be included in the ES, in chapters 1, 4 and NTS. I await your advice.
Could you please advise me why the University’s position needs to be included in the ES as set down by you.
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- Why do the options in the EIA not assess the original planning permission. I think the answer is that we would have to demolish what has been constructed and start again and we do not consider this is an appropriate solution in terms of use of funds etc. Could Adam, Nicholas, Sara and Simon please advise. ACTION: Adam, Nicholas, Sara and Simon
Nicholas will add comment and I note Simon has already replied. I and Sara would agree that we have considered practical ways of ameliorating the size and impact of the existing development, as the Council asked the University to do, and that demolishing and redeveloping the site to the old permission was not considered practical to consider in the ES at this stage due to the likely costs involved and the impacts on the university’s student accommodation, and because the original permission was rejected by the University in 2011 as it no longer met their accommodation requirements for the various reasons set out in chapter 5.
I note and understand your responses. Does this need to be picked up in any extra drafting in the ES?
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- Could Edd please confirm that it is 33 units which will be lost if a floor is removed. ACTION: Edd
I understand it is 33 units but 38 bedrooms which will be lost.
- It is noted in paragraph 1.1.29 that the City Council Planning Committee resolved that the officers should explore options “to ameliorate the size and impact of the development”. Do we believe this has been addressed through the EIA and in the options assessed. Could Adam, Nicholas, Sara and Edd please advise. ACTION: Adam, Sara, Nicholas and Edd
Yes, we can say that the options 1-3 assessed attempt to ameliorate (‘Make (something bad or unsatisfactory) better’) the size and impact of development. Certainly all three options attempt to make the ‘impact’ better. Options 2 and 3 clearly reduce the size of the development to make it better. Option 1 attempts to make the development better by changing the appearance of the buildings.
Does this need to addressed in the ES?
- [Redacted – outside scope
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- I think that the EIA and appendices need to be tabulated more clearly than the versions we received on Monday. I appreciate this may be due to lack of time but would be grateful if Adam could confirm this. ACTION: Adam
Yes we will be using clear file dividers to divide the Appendices in the final version. This was not carried out sufficiently this week due to shortage of time.
Noted.
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
- [Redacted – outside scope]
I hope this helps. Please can we discuss on the phone tomorrow?
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
***************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 08 October 2014 09:35
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe; Edd Medlicott; ‘Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk)’; Legal Services; Capital Projects; Communications; Iain Nicholson at PRBI; ‘nik Lyzba’; Asset and Space Management
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Confidential – Castle Mill
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
The team and I met yesterday afternoon to review the current positon and progress made with regards to the proposed submission of the EIA later this month.
By way of introduction I confirm those included in this email who are not known to the EIA team are as follows:
[Redacted – outside scope]
We identified a number of points which I set down below. The list is somewhat long, and I appreciate does not apply to all those copied in to this email. Nevertheless, I am keen to ensure that everybody is aware of the actions which need to be progressed and is able to liaise direct with others on the team to ensure progress is made.
The list includes the following:
- There are a number of items in the documents which we received on Monday which include for example “check”, are still highlighted etc. Could Adam please advise when these will be completed such that the document is in its final form. ACTION: Adam
- Could Adam please liaise with [Capital Projects] and advise if there is any information still outstanding from the consultant team involved in the construction of Castle Mill. ACTION: Adam and [Capital Projects]
- Could Adam and Nick please advise if they consider the position is clear with regards to the conditions attached to the planning permission and whether all the information required has been submitted to the City Council to enable them to be considered at Committee. ACTION: Adam and Nik
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- There is also a degree of uncertainty as to whether all information that needs to be submitted to discharge Condition 17 has been submitted and whether in fact a further report is required to enable the Committee to consider the discharge. ACTION: Adam
- I need to check the various emails I have sent following the conferences with Counsel to ensure that the queries which were raised have been addressed. I will ask [Asset and Space Management]to assist on this. ACTION: CAP and [Asset and Space Management]
- Energy Centre flue/chimney – following email correspondence yesterday afternoon I think that Adam has clarified the position. In view of this, I need to raise this with Michael Crofton-Briggs. ACTION: CAP
- As mentioned above we need to agree what material is required and how it is to be submitted to ensure that the conditions can be considered at Committee and discharged. My inclination is that we deal with this as a separate submission after the EIA has been submitted and I would be grateful if Adam could advise accordingly. ACTION: Adam and Nik
- There is no reference in the EIA as to whether or not any objections were submitted to the application which was approved and has now been constructed. The EIA only refers to the lack of public consultation. Should there be some acknowledgement of any public responses to the application. ACTION: Adam and Nik
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- Paragraph 3.3.7 refers to difficulties with regards to baseline information. Does this need to be explained in that the information is not available because on the basis the application was considered to be not EIA development, no surveys were undertaken. ACTION: Adam
- I confirm that [Legal Services] has sent to Rupert and Sasha a set of the EIA itself, but not the appendices. Could Adam please advise who is going to check that all pages in the final version are “clean”, gaps have been completed, highlighting removed etc. ACTION: Adam
- Could Adam please ensure that the font in all chapters is the same. At present Chapter 8, is not. ACTION: Adam/Simon
- Non-technical summary – I am increasingly concerned that we do not yet have the draft document. It is important for the University to see it to understand its content, length etc in terms of how this is going to be used and to assist in terms of our preparing for the submission. Could Adam please confirm if possible by the end of today when a draft will be with the University. ACTION: Adam
- I am reviewing with colleagues who will undertake the final sign off of the EIA. ACTION: CAP
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- We need to establish the University’s position and which option it is going to put forward as part of the submission. ACTION: [Legal Services] and CAP
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- Why do the options in the EIA not assess the original planning permission? I think the answer is that we would have to demolish what has been constructed and start again and we do not consider this is an appropriate solution in terms of use of funds etc. Could Adam, Nicholas, Sara and Simon please advise. ACTION: Adam, Nicholas, Sara and Simon
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- Could Edd please confirm that it is 33 units which will be lost if a floor is removed. ACTION: Edd
- It is noted in paragraph 1.1.29 that the City Council Planning Committee resolved that the officers should explore options “to ameliorate the size and impact of the development”. Do we believe this has been addressed through the EIA and in the options assessed? Could Adam, Nicholas, Sara and Edd please advise. ACTION: Adam, Sara, Nicholas and Edd
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- I think that the EIA and appendices need to be tabulated more clearly than the versions we received on Monday. I appreciate this may be due to lack of time but would be grateful if Adam could confirm this. ACTION: Adam
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
- [Redacted – Outside scope]
I appreciate that this is a somewhat extensive list, but I hope that you will all appreciate that we need to ensure that we have addressed all actions both in terms of ensuring the EIA when submitted is as accurate and robust as possible but also ensuring that we are fully prepared both in terms of notices, delivery of documents etc.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding the above. If anybody has any specific comments or queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
**************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 07 October 2014 17:02
To: Legal Services; nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Adam Boyden; Capital Projects
Subject: Confidential Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear All,
Following my email below I was wondering if you have had an opportunity to consider the query regarding the chimney height.
Michael refers to the drawings showing the amendments detailed in my note which does not include the flue/chimney – so I think it could be argued that we have not resolved the flue/chimney height.
Can you let me know what you think?
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
—————————————————————–
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 23 September 2014 10:33
To: Adam Boyden; nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear All,
Please see below emails regarding minor amendments.
Please note we do not refer to the energy centre flues and as such I do not think this has been raised with them, though may have been on the drawings presented.
The flue height is still on my ‘worry list’!
[Legal Services] can you please forward to Rupert and Sasha?
Many thanks,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
—————————————
From: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael [mailto:mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 April 2014 08:12
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Paul Goffin; Legal Services; Capital Projects; HANCOCK Murray; EDWARDS David
Subject: RE: Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear Carolyn
Thank you for highlighting these amendments. Murray Hancock has had an opportunity to view drawings showing each of these very minor amendments at your offices. I can confirm that the City Council has come to the view that these are of so minor a nature that they did not need to be formally notified to the City Council.
This is the same approach that the City Council takes with other such amendments with comparable developments.
Michael Crofton-Briggs
Head of City Development
T: 01865 252360
—————————————————————–
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 February 2014 18:06
To: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael
Cc: Paul Goffin; Legal Services; Capital Projects
Subject: Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear Michael,
On the basis the construction of Castle Mill Phase 2 at Roger Dudman way has now been completed, the design team working with the contractors have undertaken a review of the development as built against the plans as approved under the planning permission.
The team have identified a number of amendments which we consider to be non-material. The list comprises:
- Reduction in height of the baffle gates to the NE elevation to 2.1m
- Removal of the window shrouds to the north, west and south facades, (east window shrouds were retained).
- Roof detail amended behind the stair case pods to blocks 5 and 8.
- Duraclad cladding omitted above the corridor windows to the east and west facades.
- Slight reduction in the width of the windows throughout the scheme.
- Substation roof is now GRP.
- The louvre on the west elevation of the energy centre is Duraclad at the top and powder coated aluminium lower down.
- The installed roof lights to the foyer of the Gatehouse are slightly smaller than originally proposed.
- As shown in the submitted materials drawings, the lift tower roofs have been simplified with just a parapet.
- The cycle shelters have been straightened instead of being curved in plan
I am advised that these changes were discussed with the application case officer.
The PVs which were approved were not included in the scheme. We are currently discussing whether they should be introduced.
Could you please confirm to me that the City Council consider that the amendments detailed above are indeed non material and as such have no impact on the planning permission.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
****************************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 11 September 2014 13:56
To: nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk
Cc: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Subject: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear Nik,
I have not looked at the attached but in haste please see attached schedules, which I hope provide the information you need. Please note there are I understand a number of tabs with the figures.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
————————————————————————————-
From: Nik Lyzba [mailto:nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2014 15:06
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Adam Boyden
Subject: FW: RDW
Dear Carolyn,
Further to your e-mail and Schedule and my e-mail to Adam, Edd has provided the response to me below.
Edd’s reply indicates a greater cost than merely rental income form the upper floors for Option 3 and the possible greater impact of Option 2 (for a shorter period than Option 3) if the Blocks have to be vacated for the work (which would also affect Option 3). Is the University able to quantify any of this further, please?
Kind regards.
Nik Lyzba
——————————————————————————————
From: Edd Medlicott [mailto:edd@orme-architecture.com]
Sent: 10 September 2014 14:23
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Nik Lyzba; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: RE: RDW
Dear Nik
In answer to your email, we are currently working on the following assumptions:
Option 3 – this would see the permanent removal of all the fourth floor accommodation and would most likely result in having to vacate each block for between 3 and 5 months whilst the work is carried out. This is proving incredibly difficult to predict at this stage but we can assume that they would go block by block, for the time being. There would therefore be rental income lost on all 4th floor accommodation for the 25 year life span of the buildings, and loss of income on all remaining floors for the length of time it takes for each block to have a floor removed and be re-clad. We cannot see that it will be possible to take a floor off a block with students in occupation on any floors.
Option 2 – this would result in the top floor accommodation in all blocks being vacated for the duration of the roof alterations and re-cladding works, between 2 and 3 months per block. Blocks H and L are four storeys and therefore the spreadsheet gives the income for the 3rd floor on these blocks as opposed to the 4th floor on the remaining blocks.
What we don’t have at present is anywhere near enough construction information to definitively say one way or another whether the remaining floors will be able to remain in occupation, from a noise and disturbance point of view, whilst the re-cladding and roof alterations take place. We do not have a programme or a sequencing plan either, and so we are assuming that work can be undertaken block by block. The figures would look very different if it had to be done all as one.
Best wishes
Edd
*************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 September 2014 18:20
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Cc: Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk)
Subject: FW: eco consult report
Dear Adam,
Please see the email trail below.
Please can you ensure these issues are picked up in the Ecology Report and EIA chapter.
We need to review the request to see the chapter before submission.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
—————————————————————————–
From: Paul Goffin
Sent: 10 September 2014 09:18
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Capital Projects
Subject: FW: eco consult report
Dear Carolyn,
Please see below and to be aware as we are likely to need their Allotment Associations support in the coming weeks.
Best wishes,
Paul.
……………………………….
Paul Goffin BSc MSc FRICS
Director of Estates
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 278755 E: paulf.goffin@admin.ox.ac.uk
……………………………………………
From: Resident
Sent: 09 September 2014 23:16
To: Paul Goffin
Cc: Other residents
Subject: RE: eco consult report
Thanks Paul. We cannot afford to be embarrassed again with badger info and we have the local badger group hassling us yet again. As early a sight as possible and definitely BEFORE general publication would be a very necessary step forward.
[Resident]
————————————————
From: Paul Goffin [mailto:paulf.goffin@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 09 September 2014 15:49
To: Resident; Capital Projects
Subject: RE: eco consult report
Dear [Resident],
A report is being prepared as a part of the EIA, but we are still waiting for final sign off of the EIA Ecology chapter and reports. The consultants are ensuring that the current position with the badgers is picked up in the Ecologists report and the EIA chapter. We will be able to share with you as soon as it is available.
Best wishes,
Paul.
……………………………….
Paul Goffin BSc MSc FRICS
Director of Estates
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 278755 E: paulf.goffin@admin.ox.ac.uk
……………………………………………
From: Resident
Sent: 06 September 2014 08:18
To: Capital Projects; Paul Goffin
Subject: eco consult report
We have a committee meeting on weds and due to renewed activity re badgers we would like to see a copy of this report. We understand it was prepared for the EA .
Best wishes,
[Resident]
**************************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 10 September 2014 16:36
To: Building Services; Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Cc: Environmental Sustainability; Environmental Sustainability; Sara Metcalfe; Capital Projects; Nik Lyzba; Capital Projects; Engineer, Frankham Consultancy Group
Subject: Re: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
[Building Services],
I just had [Environmental Sustainability] send over the actual chp data to both [Engineer] and [Senior Mechanical Engineer] from Frankhams so they can progress the calculations
[Capital Projects]
Regards
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
***********************************************************************
From: Building Services
Sent: 10 September 2014 16:18
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Cc: Environmental Sustainability; Environmental Sustainability; Sara Metcalfe; Capital Projects; Nik Lyzba; Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
All,
You could try chasing his boss [Engineer, Frankhams]
[Personal details redacted]
[Senior Mechanical Engineer, Frankhams] also was not at the end of defects meeting at Castlemill but I think he called in sick.
From the numbers I have seen I calculate:
| Heat from CHP | 774,341 | |
| Heat from boilers (85%) | 511,296 | |
| % from CHP | 60.2% | |
| Site Elec | 460,338 | |
| CHP elec | 358,351 | |
| % from CHP | 77.8% | |
So over 60% of the heating and over 77% of the electricity is provided by the CHP. These are percentages of total loads – not regulated / unregulated! As such I think that you can confidently state that the CHP is exceeding the ‘20%’ criteria. I stress however that I am not responsible for the energy report and so do not know what was agreed that the CHP would provide in design or under any subsequent amendments.
Regards
[Building Services]
——————————————————————-
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2014 14:42
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Cc: Environmental Sustainability; Building Services; Sara Metcalfe; Capital Projects; Nik Lyzba; Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
Dear Carolyn, [Legal Services],
As discussed with [Legal Services] just now, this is where I got to on the energy issue – I called [Senior Mechanical Engineer, Frankhams] in July to discuss and to ask him to prepare an update to the Energy Report, to assess whether the CHP was sufficient to meet carbon reduction targets and avoid the need for PV panels being required (as they would be in accordance with the submitted NRIA report, and related planning condition, and approved planning drawings). I sent him an email on 24 July and a reminder on 12 August, but have not heard back from [Senior Mechanical Engineer, Frankhams] at all and I am not sure if he is attending to this at all.
Regards
Adam Boyden
********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 September 2014 09:58
To: Edd Medlicott; nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Adam Boyden; Capital Projects
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL – Castle Mill – EIA
Dear Edd,
I am assuming only one year on the basis the works can be done in one year and then 25 years as the life of the building.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
—————————————–
From: Edd Medlicott [mailto:edd@orme-architecture.com]
Sent: 10 September 2014 09:48
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Adam Boyden; Capital Projects
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL – Castle Mill – EIA
Dear Carolyn
Do you know how many years we should be calculating loss of rental income for, in terms of the cost of taking the floor off?
Best wishes
Edd
*******************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2014 07:43
To: nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Adam Boyden; Edd Medlicott; Capital Projects
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL – Castle Mill – EIA
Dear All,
Please see the attached schedule which I hope details the information you need regarding the rents of the top floors at Castle Mill and make up of type of units.
If you need any more information please let me know.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
**************************
From: Finance Division
Sent: 09 September 2014 16:14
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Asset and Space Management
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: RE: Castle Mill – EIA
Please see analysis with rent totals for top floors per block split by type of accommodation.
Please let me know if you require any further information
Regards
Finance Division
***************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 05 September 2014 09:55
To: Capital Projects; tom@orme-architecture.com; Edd Medlicott; Legal Services
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Castle Mill – Structural Engineering Implications of Preferred Mitigation Measures
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
Thank you for your email yesterday afternoon with your initial advice regarding the various mitigation options which have been designed by Orme.
I spoke to Ed yesterday afternoon and discussed this in more detail.
With regards to the solutions proposed, I appreciate you have addressed the ability to undertake the works to the rooves with the students in occupation. You also note that you believe it will be possible to safely re-clad the facades with the rooms in occupation, though welfare of the students will need to be considered. Could you please advise what you anticipate this may involve or whether it would simply be possible to undertake the work during normal working hours with the students having been notified accordingly.
Could you also please advise how long you consider it would take to undertake the façade works and/or the roof works to each block. I anticipate that if the University progress these works they will wish to do so on a block by block basis. It would therefore be important to understand if it was progressed on this basis what the total programme would be.
If you have any queries regarding the above please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
******************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 19 August 2014 10:29
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill condition ,18 badger habitat management plan
Dear Adam,
Please see below. If you need to contact my colleagues please do so.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
*******************************************
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 19 August 2014 09:46
To: Conservation and Building; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Asset and Space Management; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Castle Mill condition, 18 badger habitat management plan
Dear [Conservation and Building],
Yes, we are aware and are maintaining the area as per schedule issued to us by [Capital Projects] last summer following planting works that we undertook as part of the Castle Mill project. I’ve discussed the area with [Asset and Space Management] and badger welfare.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
———————————–
From: Conservation and Building
Sent: 19 August 2014 09:26
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Asset and Space Management
Subject: FW: Castle Mill condition ,18 badger habitat management plan
Dear Carolyn,
This is the update on the badger works at Castle Mill.
[Asset and Space Management] – could you confirm that the ongoing maintenance is something that you are aware of and/or have in hand?
Many Thanks
[Conservation and Building]
——————–
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 15 August 2014 16:31
To: Conservation and Building
Subject: RE: Castle Mill condition ,18 badger habitat management plan
[Conservation and Building]
We have responded to these, as most were completed. As far as I’m aware the only issue remaining is light in the badger area, which may need a shroud on the light column. [Asset and Space Management] has given me some advice and I need to move this one forward.
Kind regards
[Capital Projects]
****************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 14 August 2014 16:48
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Subject: FW: REQUEST: Castle Mill Flue Design & Calculations
Dear Adam,
Please see below and attached.
Does this now complete the information you require?
If you are still waiting for the consultants to provide papers etc can you please let me know what and from who so that it can be addressed by the University.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————————————————-
| A1BRIDGE FLUE SYSTEMS Maun Way Boughton Industrial Estate Nr. New Ollerton
Newark Nottinghamshire NG22 9ZD Telphone: +,, (0)1623 860 548 Fax: +,, (0)1623 835 5,8 E-MAIL: in7o@a17lues.co.uk or technical@a17lues.o.uk VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT:http://www.a17lues.co.uk |
EXHAUST DISCHARGE HEIGHT CALCULATION TO D1
Project Re7:- Castle Mill Oxford Cal.Re7:- Blrs & CHPs
Customer :- LX Engineering Date :- 23/07/2014
Engineer :- [Redacted]
Exhaust Re7.:- 1 2
Input Details:-
Appliance Type. Boiler CHP
Make. Broag SAV
Model. 2x 610-8 5x XRGI15
Fuel Type. N.Gas N.Gas
Fuel Su%. 0.0 0.0
Exh.Gas Flow. 3067.0 630.0
Exh.Gas Units. kg/hr kg/hr
Exh.Gas Temp(in).(C) 65 120
Exh.Gas Temp(exit).(C) 55 95
Exh.Exit Dia.(mm) 600 250
Exh.Gas Emm. NO 123 282
Exh.NO Units mg/kw(in nett) mg/Nm3(dry)
@5%O2
Exh.Gas Emm. NO2 7 32
Exh.NO2 Units mg/kw(in nett) mg/Nm3(dry)
@5%O2
Exh.Gas %H2O 17.0 10.0
Exh.Gas %O2 3.0 11.0
Appliance Input 2144.0 282.0
App.Input Units kw(gross.Cv) kw(gross.Cv)
Appliance Output(kW) 2740 225
Location:- Major city center / Heavy industrial area.
SO2 NO NO2 CO SPM
Guideline Con.s(mg/m3) 0.44 1.0 0.2 57.0 0.3
Background Con.s(mg/m3) 0.16 0.4 0.17 0.25
For Results See Continuation Sheet
| A1 |
BRIDGE FLUE SYSTEMS EXHAUST DISCHARGE HEIGHT CALCULATION TO D1
| Project Re7:- Castle Mill Oxford Cal.Re7:- Blrs & CHPs
Continuation Sheet |
|
| Exhaust Re7.:- | 1 2 |
| Results:- | |
| Appliance Status | ON ON |
| Exh.Gas Vol. @ Exit(M3/s) | 0.84 0.19 |
| Exh.Gas Vel. @ Exit(m/s) | 2.95 3.92 |
| Exh.Gas Emm. NO(g/s) | 0.0661 0.0226 |
| Exh.Gas Emm. NO2(g/s) | 0.0038 0.0026 |
| Exh.Gas Emm. CO(g/s) | 0.0 0.0071 |
| Pollution Index NO | 110 38 |
| Pollution Index NO2 | 125 85 |
| Pollution Index CO | |
| Heat Release Q(MW) | 0.04 0.02 |
| Exit Momentum M(mA4/s) | 2.13 0.58 |
| Um(m) | 1.97 0.69 |
| Um/2(m) | 0.99 0.34 |
| 5Um(m) | 9.85 3.45 |
| Method of Calculation | Single Source |
| Pollution Index | 211 |
| Total Q(MW) | 0.05 |
| Total M(mA4/s) | 2.71 |
| Ub(m) | 1.79 |
| Um(m) | 2.69 |
| 5Um(m) | 13.46 |
| No of Buildings | 1 |
| No. 1Height / Width | 14.3x >Ht |
| Hm | 14.3 |
| Tm | |
| Calculated Height C(m) | 16.39 |
| Adj.for Min. Requirements(m) | 0.0 |
| Final Discharge Height(m) | 16.4 |
| (Above ground level.) | |
Comments:
- The final chimney height of all chimneys must be approved by the Local Environmental Health Department who may specify a further adjustment in overall height in light of particular local circumstances.
- No height adjustment has been added to cover the possible overriding minimum requirement of clause 25 of the Memorandum due to insuffient information being available
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 14 August 2014 13:27
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Capital Projects
Subject: FW: REQUEST: Castle Mill Flue Design & Calculations
Caroline, [Capital Projects]
Please refer to the note below from Murray Hancock with regards to the flue at castle mill.
Regards
Capital Projects
——————————————
From: HANCOCK Murray [mailto:mhancock@oxford.gov.uk]
Sent: 06 August 2014 09:57
To: Shane.Kelly@longcross.co.uk
Cc: Capital Projects; RENNIE Lesley
Subject: FW: REQUEST: Castle Mill Flue Design & Calculations
Dear Mr Kelly,
Your email has been forwarded to me by my colleague Lesley Rennie in Environmental Development.
I have now spoken to [Capital Projects]at the University Estates Office who advises me that although the flue was erected lower than shown on the planning drawings for this case, that certification has been received from yourselves that it meets all requirements under the Clean Air Acts, and that no further action is required.
Nevertheless thank you for notifying me.
Murray Hancock I Chief Principal Planner I City Development I Oxford City Council I St. Aldates Chambers I 109 – 113 St. Aldates I Oxford I OX1 1DS.
Email: mhancock@oxford.gov.uk I Tel: 01865 252153 I
————————————–
From: RENNIE Lesley
Sent: 30 July 2014 16:14
To: HANCOCK Murray
Subject: REQUEST: Castle Mill Flue Design & Calculations
Murray
I’m not aware of any EH sign off requirements. Are you able to advise Mr Kelly?
Many thanks
Lesley
Lesley Rennie│Business Regulation Team Manager│Environmental Development│St Aldate’s Chambers│109 St Aldate’s│Oxford│OX1 1DS│01865 252836
——————————————
From: Shane Kelly [mailto:Shane.Kelly@longcross.co.uk]
Sent: 30 July 2014 11:36
To: RENNIE Lesley
Subject: Castle Mill Flue Design & Calculations
Lesley
As discussed please see below sequence of events regarding the flue at Castle Mill:
- The non technical planning approved drawing shows the chimney maximum height at + 17.650m AFGL. Planning drawings approved by LPA indicating generic chimney stack.
- Due to Structural constraints the chimney was built at its highest point + 15.190m AFGL, with the flue extending out approximately by another 0.5m, therefore the flue height being at least +15.690m AFGL. This was done in full consultation with our Architect and Str Engineer (Frankhams).
- The elevations show openable windows at a maximum + 10.840m AFGL (to the top side), meaning the flue will be at least + 4.850m above any openable window.
- A1 flues brought on board to design flue system and install in accordance with all relevant best practice and guidelines and confirmed as having done so (height reduced due to structural reasons).
- The flue is situated a minimum 15m horizontally from any other habitable building.
I trust this clarifies this situation, however I need to understand if there are any Environmental Health processes or sign off procedures that need to be adhered to. As discussed during our conversation I believe we have already fulfilled all our obligations, however I am being chased regarding ‘Clean Air Act’ compliance.
If you could come back to me by the end of the week I would be most grateful.
Many Thanks.
Shane Kelly
Senior Project Manager
Longcross Construction Ltd.
Sherwood House
The Village
Maisies Way
South Normanton
Derbyshire
DE55 2DS
| Tel: Fax: Mob: Email: Web: |
(01773) 814 550 (01773) 814 551 (07920) 754 419 shane.kelly@longcross.co.uk www.longcross.co.uk |
*******************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 12 August 2014 15:00
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe; Amanda Gair; Sara Metcalfe
Subject: Fw: certificate
Adam,
Certificate from A1
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
[Capital Projects]
************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 12 August 2014 12:25
To: Adam Boyden; Capital Projects; Legal Services
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Carolyn Puddicombe; Amanda Gair; Capital Projects
Subject: Re: 10717 Castle Mill ES – Air Quality
Adam,
[Capital Projects] will forward the compliance certificate from A1 later today.
Regards
[Capital Projects]
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Adam Boyden <adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:04:45 +0000
To: Capital Projects; Legal Services
Cc: Sara Metcalfe<sara.metcalfe@npaconsult.co.uk>; Carolyn Puddicombe<carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk>; Amanda Gair<ajg@gairconsulting.com>
Subject: RE: 10717 Castle Mill ES – Air Quality
Dear [Capital Projects], [Legal Services],
Amanda Gair confirmed this morning that she has not yet received any information or confirmation from Longcross/Frankhams/A1 Flue Systems or the University regarding the current energy centre stack’s compliance with emissions standards / air quality legislation, to enable her to update and complete the ES chapter 13 on Air Quality and the technical appendix. Please can
I ask that you chase the relevant people to provide the information to Amanda so this issue can be resolved.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
————————
From: Amanda Gair [mailto:ajg@gairconsulting.com]
Sent: 25 July 2014 15:26
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: 10717 Castle Mill ES – Air Quality
Adam
Thanks for the instructions on who to send the updated report and chapter to, I will send these on as soon as I have the information required. With regard to information on the energy centre, can you advise on whether there will be any planned reductions in the building height for Block H?
Best regards
Amanda
Amanda Gair
Telephone: 01869 278889
——————————————————-
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 25 July 2014 15:02
To: Amanda Gair
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: 10717 Castle Mill ES – Air Quality
Dear Amanda,
Good to talk again yesterday and this morning. Assuming the compliance certificate and the other information you have requested is forthcoming while I am away on Monday or over the next two weeks, please can you update your ES chapter 13 and accompanying Air Quality Technical Appendix report as appropriate and email it directly to Carolyn Puddicombe and [Legal Services] at the University, and copy me in as well as my colleague Sara Metcalfe at NPA.
Best wishes,
Adam Boyden
————————————
From: Amanda Gair [mailto:ajg@gairconsulting.com]
Sent: 24 July 2014 13:56
To: Adam Boyden
Subject: RE: Design Mitigation Stratagy – Strictly confidential, Working Draft
Hi Adam
Tried to call you to discuss this but you are out at lunch. I am out for the next couple of hours but may be back later. I haven’t seen anything with regard to the compliance certificate so getting the report/chapter updated today is looking unlikely. I am free tomorrow so we can have a look then.
Best regards
Amanda
Amanda Gair
Telephone: 01869 278889
Adam Boyden BSc Hons MSc MIEMA CEnv IEMA Registered EIA Practitioner | Associate
Nicholas Pearson Associates | 30 Brock Street | Bath | BA1 2LN
T: 01225 445548
www.npaconsult.co.uk
*************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 31 July 2014 08:04
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Subject: Castle Mill EIA Badgers
Dear Adam,
Please see below to keep you briefed regarding the Allotments and badgers.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
——————————————————————–
From: Paul Goffin
Sent: 29 July 2014 16:08
To: Capital Projects; Asset and Space Management
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: RE: Badgers
Dear Both,
As I’ve received no comments I’m assuming that you are both content with my points, however I do need the information that is missing or needs checking in brackets. If I could chase you to respond by end of play tomorrow then that would be good as I do need to send this to [Resident].
I have copied Carolyn into this note as it is potentially relevant to the EIA works.
Many thanks,
Paul.
………………………………
Paul Goffin BSc MSc FRICS
Director of Estates
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 278755 E: paulf.goffin@admin.ox.ac.uk
……………………………………………
From: Paul Goffin
Sent: 24 July 2014 12:14
To: Capital Projects; Asset and Space Management
Subject: Badgers
Dear Both,
I thought it might be helpful for us to agree the wording that I’ll send a confirmation email to [Resident].
I think we agreed to the following actions that I will then work into an email:
- I would contact the City Council to ask them to remove the two trees that have fallen into the stream (name?)
- I would write to the Environment Agency to ask them if they could clear the rushes and growth in the stream (name?)
- I would write to the City Council (as Landlord) and the Environment Agency to ask for permission to install a 30m run of fence (to be shown on a plan) with a number of fans which project out into the stream (size?)and down to the surface of the water at summer levels. The fence would be up to 1.5m in height overall, powder coated in green (or black?) and with a finer mesh that is to be attached to the fence and then down into the ground to match the specification of the current fencing (do we know the current spec?). We are suggesting that this work takes place next spring, in March (2015), subject to any flooding having receded.
All comments gratefully received.
Many thanks,
Paul.
***************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 30 July 2014 11:13
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; nik Lyzba
Subject: Castle Mill EIA and Planning Conditions
Dear both,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
I attach for your information a schedule of planning conditions which was included in the PSG papers for its meeting held on 28 July 2014.
I hope that this schedule agrees with the information included by Adam and Nik in the current draft of the EIA.
I am particularly concerned that we address Planning Condition 15 with regards to the NRIA submission, PV panels etc. Adam’s note dated 24 July 2014 refers to Planning Condition 15 relating to the NRIA submission yet the schedule submitted to the PSG details condition 17 embodying NRIA principles.
The schedule states with regards to Condition 17 that no further action is required. Clearly this needs to be confirmed.
I am also concerned to ensure that with regards to the conditions, if information has been submitted but not yet considered by the City Council that if we submit further information amending this, that we are clear in the EIA and submit it separately as necessary.
Can we please pick this up as a specific item at the conference with Counsel.
If you have any comments or points of clarification regarding the above and the attached could you please let us know.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
**************************************
From: Building Services
Sent: 24 July 2014 08:23
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Environmental Sustainability
Subject: RE: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
All,
Please note if you install PV’s then the CHP will no longer run during the hours of daylight. Assuming you had the roof space, you would therefore need to install sufficient PV to plug the gap and sell the excess electrical energy back to the grid at a loss.
Regards
[Building Services]
************************************
From: Environmental Sustainability
Sent: 22 July 2014 15:39
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Environmental Sustainability; Carolyn Puddicombe; Building Services
Subject: RE: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
Dear Adam,
Please find attached the energy figures for Castle Mill. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
[Environmental Sustainability]
*********************************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 21 July 2014 09:26
To: Adam Boyden; iaincorbyn@eco-consult.co.uk
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Conservation and Building; Asset and Space Management
Subject: FW: Riverbank survey
Adam, Iain
Please note [Resident’s] concern about lack of consultation regarding badger activity as part of the EIA.
I will leave you to assess the need for consultation with the allotment holders in this matter.
Kind regards
Capital Projects
———————————————————————————-
From: Resident
Sent: 18 July 2014 08:45
To: Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Riverbank survey
No it had not been arranged but [Residents] were expecting it after [Residents] wrote to you and spoke to [Asset and Space Management]. With regard to the issues below Cripley Meadow will consider it very provocative if the history and our very direct and very long term observations with regard to the management of badgers are not given due consideration this time, as happened previously. If Cripley Meadow land is mentioned in the report and it again makes assumptions and conclusions and we have not been consulted first we will be very cross. Badger land at the back is cripley meadow land up to the end of the Roger Venneit buildings.
[Resident]
——————————————————————
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 17 July 2014 18:29
To: Resident
Cc: Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Riverbank survey
[Resident]
I’ve contacted both Eco-consult and [Redacted] but neither were aware that a meeting had been arranged with you whilst the boat survey was being undertaken on Wednesday.
Can you let me know who you confirm this with?
Kind regards
Capital Projects
———————————————–
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 10 July 2014 14:33
To: ‘Resident’
Cc: Paul Goffin; Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Riverbank survey
[Resident]
I have passed this information onto Eco-consult and highlighted the issues.
Kind regards
Capital Projects
——————————————
From: Resident [Resident]
Sent: 10 July 2014 13:11
To: Capital Projects
Cc: Paul Goffin; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Riverbank survey
Many thanks for letting us know [Capital projects]. Presumably you and they are aware that we ([Residents], Paul Goffin, [Capital Projects] met last week and are still working on plans to exclude the badgers from coming round the fence that goes onto Fiddlers Stream. We are agreed that OU are committed to working with [Residents] to find a mutually acceptable solution to exclude badgers from entering out site. We are meeting on July 24th with [Asset and Space Management] to consider yet another plan to achieve this. It is very important that eco consult do not make, as they did before, any assumptions about our land and if they make reference to Cripley Meadow in their report it must be after consultation with us.
There is a strip of land between the allotment and Fiddlers Stream between our South Field and the main site (up to plot 32) (see attached map). We call this Fiddler’s Bow. It did not seem to have a name on any map. This is OCC land but one of our site fences (put in by OCC) crosses it by Plot 40.
Best wishes,
[Resident]
—————————————————————–
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 10 July 2014 10:35
To: Resident
Subject: Riverbank survey
[Resident]
As part of the University’s Environmental Assessment, Eco-consult will be undertaking a riverbank survey of Fiddlers Stream and adjacent waterways next Wednesday 16th July. The survey will be undertaken from a small rowing boat, on the Navigation, but could involve wading into overgrown sections of the allotment river bank.
They will also access the badger sett areas, for which they hold a licence.
Could you please advise your members that this will be taking place next week.
Kind regards
Capital Projects
*************************************
From: Building Services
Sent: 18 July 2014 15:28
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Environmental Sustainability
Cc: Adam Boyden; Environmental Sustainability; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
[Environmental Sustainability],
Can you ask [Environmental Sustainability] to provide the latest meter readings for the SAV (heat and electricity), gas and electrical consumption less SAV contribution.
Adam – – will this be sufficient for you calculate the contribution? I am sorry but I am not familiar with how the 20% generation is calculated as I assume that this is on the regulated load as opposed to the total load. If may well be the case that we are supplying more that 100% of the regulated load electrical requirements with the CHP as at times it has to back off as there is insufficient electrical demand on site. I don’t know how this is treated under part L. If you are unable to do this presumably Andrew Williams would be able to do this?
Regards
Building Services
********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 18 July 2014 15:07
To: Building Services; Environmental Sustainability
Cc: Adam Boyden
Subject: Castle Mill EIA and CHP / PV
Dear [Building Services] and [Environmental Sustainability],
Can you please review the correspondence below and attached and advise Adam Boyden, copied in, of the current position.
I confirm Adam is leading the preparation of the EIA for the University.
Many thanks,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 15 July 2014 16:28
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Legal Services
Subject: RE: FW: Castlemill CHP / PV
Dear Carolyn,
Thank you for the emails.
Planning condition 15 for the Castle Mill phase 2 development requires that the development is undertaken fully in accordance with the principles embodied in the Natural Resource Impact Analysis accompanying the planning application (see attached) so as to achieve a score of 6 out of 11 with a minimum score achieved in each of the categories, including renewable energy, and allows no variation in to the NRIA as submitted which would result in failure to meet the minimum scores without the prior written approval of the council.
The submitted NRIA form stated that 1 point (the minimum) would be gained by achieving 20% of energy requirements being met by on-site renewables. However as we have discussed, the Energy Report submitted with the planning application (see attached), section 9.8 and 10.0 state that PV panels should be installed only if the CHP unit does not deliver the expected reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20.2%.
Are you any further forward in finding out whether the CHP unit installed is meeting the expected energy and emission reduction targets?
As PV panels are now not going to be installed, and to comply with the terms of planning condition 15, I think the University needs to complete and submit a revised NRIA template for City Council approval. If the form is accompanied by a discussion of why the PV are not necessary and would cause problems for the CHP system, I do not think there should be a problem in obtaining approval. Please see here for the templates – http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Supplementary_Planning_Documents_occw.htm
The Energy Report was commissioned by [Senior Mechanical Engineer] at Frankhams – [Personal details redacted]
I have asked [Senior Mechanical Engineer] to get in touch and will chase him again if that is necessary, unless perhaps [Environmental Sustainability] can deal with this issue now?
Please can you let me know how you wish to proceed on this one?
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
****************************************************
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 14 July 2014 17:33
To: Capital Projects; adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: RE: Castle Mill condition 18 badger habitat management plan
Dear [Capital Projects],
Yes we are maintaining the badger sett in line with the schedule. All of the works that you have highlighted in red have been completed.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
*****************************
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 14 July 2014 16:57
To: ‘Capital Projects’; adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk; Carolyn Puddicombe; Asset and Space Management
Subject: RE: Castle Mill condition 18 badger habitat management plan
Adam
Please see my comments in red below.
By copy I ask [Asset and Space Management] to advise if anything is incorrect in the management statements…
Kind Regards
[Capital Projects]
—————————————————
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 14 July 2014 15:16
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Legal Services; Conservation and Building; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Castle Mill condition ,18 badger habitat management plan
Dear Carolyn,
Thanks for sending this.
Is it OK for me to contact [Resident] to obtain the missing page of [Resident’s] letter to the City Council?
I will send on to and discuss with Iain Corbyn of EcoConsult to check the sett and run tomorrow, when he visits site, and to update the ES as to whether the measures recommended in the Badger Landscape and Habitat Management Plan are being complied with.
Please can you or [Conservation and Building] also confirm the status of each of the prescriptions as far as you know.
The 7 ‘Management prescriptions’ set out in the Management Plan (attached), include the following with more detailed prescriptions and timescales:
- Maintain sett area, allow sett to grow over with scrub, manage surrounding area as rough grassland, maintain Badger run as a commuter route, maintain fence along allotment boundary. – Parks Department should be managing the area in accordance with Eco-consult’s management plan This was planted in October last year, with the badger run being reseeded in wild seed in April 2014, (following further fencing works agreed with [Resident]).
- Allow area surrounding sett to develop rough grassland for reptiles and Badgers, with cutting three times/yr and apply herbicide via weed-wipe. Part of ongoing Management plan
- Plant and maintain hedgerow of thorny shrubs around Badger sett area. I assume this has not yet been planted. These were planted by Parks Department in October last year
- Create two reptile hibernation/refuge sites using logs from felled trees. I assume this has been done. These were provided by Longcross in September last year
- Lighting will be directed away from the Badger sett area and run. Yes, part of design
- Undertake no tree/scrub clearance during bird nesting season. Part of ongoing Management plan
- Minimise use of pesticides. Part of ongoing Management plan
Otherwise I assume the document remains valid and that with an update about its implementation in the ES, it should simply be resubmitted as before for approval under planning condition 18?
All the best
Adam Boyden
***********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 July 2014 17:44
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Sara Metcalfe
Subject: Castle Mill – green wall
Dear All,
Please see below.
On the basis it has been raised in connection with Castle Mill, can you please make sure this is addressed in the EIA and mitigation? There may be structural reasons why this can’t be done but we need to have the answers.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
——————————————————————-
From: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael [mailto:mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk]
Sent: 10 July 2014 15:42
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: pix green wall
Carolyn
I thought it would be appropriate to pass this email on to you.
Michael Crofton-Briggs
Head of City Development
T: 01865 252360
M: 07833 484 089
St Aldate’s Chambers, 109 -113 St Aldate’s, Oxford, OX1 1DS
———————————————————————-
From: Councillor PRICE Bob
Sent: 10 July 2014 15:27
To: HANCOCK Murray; CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael
Subject: FW: pix green wall
Can we have some of these?
bob
——————————–
From: Resident
Sent: 10 July 2014 12:05
To: Councillor FRY James [NET]; Councillor van NOOIJEN Oscar; Councillor PRICE Bob
Cc: Residents
Subject: FW: pix green wall
Resending – did you get these pix?
[Resident]
——————————————————
From: Resident
Sent: 30 June 2014 19:05
To:; cllrovannooijen@oxford.gov.uk; cllrbprice@oxford.gov.uk
Cc: Residents
Subject: pix green wall
Dear all
I was in Berlin recently and stayed in a hotel with a green wall – about 8 storeys high. So I thought these pix might be of interest as a way of ameliorating the ‘port meadow’ flats. I understand there is some ‘green wall’ thinking going on. This particular wall is planted with deciduous greenery – hydrangea petioflora, and a form of Virginia creeper, so there would be a problem with leaf drop and winter bareness. But of course ivy will do the trick v nicely; seems to grow more quickly these days [at least it does on our neighbor’s fence!], is evergreen and the bees love the flowers which start coming after 2-3 years when the plant is established.
So over to you people…
Cheers
[Resident]
*********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 July 2014 13:26
To: Adam Boyden; Carolyn Puddicombe; Conservation and Building; Capital Projects
Cc: Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: RE: Castle Mill Stream – ecological surveys
Dear Adam,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to reply on my behalf.
I have spoken with [Capital Projects] this morning, who will confirm the arrangements with you.
Kind regards
Carolyn
——————————————————————–
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 09 July 2014 15:23
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Conservation and Building; Capital Projects
Cc: Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson
Subject: FW: Castle Mill Stream – ecological surveys
Importance: High
Dear Carolyn, [Conservation and Building], [Capital Projects],
Please see below email from Iain Corbyn.
Please can you let Iain know who he needs to obtain keys from to get into the Badger sett area.
Please can you let me know who needs to be informed of his boat survey, i.e. landowners of riverbanks along Castle Mill Stream, this might include City Council, the Freemen, and [Resident]?
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
——————————————————-
From: Iain Corbyn [mailto:iaincorbyn@eco-consult.co.uk]
Sent: 09 July 2014 13:27
To: Adam Boyden
Subject: RE: Castle Mill Stream – ecological surveys
Importance: High
Dear Adam
My colleagues will do the survey of the brook next Wednesday arriving 10am. They will also need the keys for the badger sett area.
They can park in the Port Meadow car park as it is easier to launch a boat from there. Please can you ensure that anyone that needs to be informed of the survey is informed. Thanks.
Regards
Iain
****************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 July 2014 13:19
To: Paul Goffin; Conservation and Building; Capital Projects; adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Castle Mill condition, 18 badger habitat management plan
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to forward to you on my behalf.
Please see below to keep you briefed.
Kind regards
Carolyn
—————————————————————————
From: Sietske Boeles [mailto:sietske.boeles@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 10 July 2014 07:56
To: HANCOCK Murray
Cc: James Rowland; Councillor van NOOIJEN Oscar (INET); Carolyn Puddicombe; CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael
Subject: Re: Castle Mill condition ,18 badger habitat management plan
Many thanks, just to clarify :the allotment group expressed concerns about the effectiveness of he badger plan, the concerns we have received are in relation to impacts of flooding on the well being of the badgers in the artificial badger sett.
My question was also who is monitoring that the plan is carried out according to its specifications?
Many thanks
Best wishes
Sietske
Sent from my iPad
**************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 09 July 2014 19:09
To: Adam Boyden; Environmental Sustainability
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Legal Services
Subject: RE: FW: Castlemill CHP / PV
Dear Adam,
My understanding is that the decision has been taken not to install PVs.
I have copied my colleague [Environmental Sustainability] in case I am wrong.
Kind regards
Carolyn
———————————————————————————–
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 09 July 2014 16:26
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Nicholas Pearson; Legal Services
Subject: RE: FW: Castlemill CHP / PV
Dear Carolyn,
Thank you for sending this. I assume that PVs are not to be installed, although could you confirm whether a decision has finally been made? I can report it in the ES as such, in the Alternatives and Description of the Development chapters where relevant.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
—————————————————————
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 09 July 2014 14:39
To: Adam Boyden; Legal Services
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: FW: Castlemill CHP / PV
Dear Both,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to forward [Environmental Sustainability’s] email below for your information.
Kind regards
Carolyn
————————————————————————–
From: Environmental Sustainability
Sent: 09 July 2014 11:20
To: Building Services; Environmental Sustainability; Capital Projects; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: FW: Castlemill CHP / PV
Dear all
Please see below a confirmation from Low Carbon Oxford that they don’t think that PVs on Castlemill will be a viable option.
Best regards
Environmental Sustainability
—————————–
From: Als Parker [mailto:als.parker@lowcarbonhub.org]
Sent: 09 July 2014 11:17
To: Environmental Sustainability
Cc: Low Carbon Hub
Subject: Re: FW: Castlemill CHP / PV
Hello all
I’m very sorry for the delay on this.
I have just heard back from [Project Manager] at SAV Systems who has provided me with the CHP generation data and I can see that from Jan – May this year, the CHPs supplied 90% of Castle Mill’s electrical demand.
This confirms your suspicions [Environmental Sustainability] – if we were to keep the system running as it is, there would be very little demand left for PV and the majority of generation would be exported which would not be financially viable in the current market.
Therefore unfortunately PV is not suitable for the current set up at the site and I think we should dismiss this proposal for the time being.
Let me know if you need any more information.
With best wishes
Als
—————————
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Environmental Sustainability wrote:
Dear [Low Carbon Hub] and Als
It would be helpful to have a quick update on where we are with these – please see email below which seems to conclude that it is not going to be sensible to add PVs to the current mix.
Had you come to the same conclusion?
Best regards
Environmental Sustainability
———————–
From: Environmental Sustainability
Sent: 23 June 2014 13:35
To: Building Services; Environmental Sustainability; Capital Projects; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Estates Services
Subject: RE: Castlemill CHP / PV
Thanks for flagging this up [Building Services].
[Environmental Sustainability] and I will liaise with the Low Carbon hub / City Council whom I’m sure would not want to install something which led to inefficiencies in our system.
Best regards
Environmental Sustainability
———————————————-
From: Building Services
Sent: 23 June 2014 12:59
To: Environmental Sustainability; Capital Projects; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Estates Services
Subject: Castlemill CHP / PV
All,
I have just come from a meeting with the manufacturers of the CHPs in Castlemill (SAV).
I was advised that the CHP’s are electrically led. This is because the installed capacity of the CHPs (75kW) exceeds the day time load (which was about 53kW while I was on site). The CHP engines back off or shutdown to meet the electrical demand and the boilers are required if there as a gap to plug in the heating / hot water demand. There is an alternative which is we export to the grid and sell our electricity but because you don’t get a market rate for electricity this is not financially sensible.
The right answer is to find more electrical load so we use the full capacity. This may not be possible as we think Phase 1 is fed from a separate transformer but Rob is looking into this.
If we install PV on Phase 2 then they will remove electrical load which will make the CHP run for less time. If 50kW of PV are installed the CHP will only every run at night.
Regards
Building Services
***************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 02 July 2014 09:23
To: nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Adam Boyden
Subject: Planning Permissions with 3000 student limit
Dear Nik,
I attach details of the planning permissions which have either recently been built out or which are still extant and contain a condition preventing the use of the building unless there are fewer than 3000 students in private rented accommodation.
Please let me know if you would like any additional information on this.
Kind regards
[Legal Services]
*********************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 01 July 2014 15:20
To: Adam Boyden; Sara Metcalfe; Legal Services; Nicholas Pearson
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Castle Mill EIA
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
Following our meeting on 24 June 2014 I set down below my understanding of the key points discussed and actions agreed.
The list included:
- NPA to instruct the noise surveys to enable the analysis to be undertaken and updated.
- NPA to prepare a briefing note on the noise chapter to enable it to be submitted to the William Lucy Residents Association before/as the EIA is submitted.
- University to confirm approvals and position regarding the height of the chimney stack on the energy centre. I am advised that it has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. I have asked for this to be confirmed in writing.
- [Legal Services] to arrange a conference call on the contamination chapter.
- Adam continues to press Frankhams for further information regarding contamination.
- Socio-economic chapter to be drafted by Nik Lyzba and Adam.
- [Legal Services] to give details of the planning permissions which have a condition relating to 3,000 students in private/independent accommodation.
- The chapter to address the impact on the University if we are not able to develop and occupy academic buildings due to the 3,000 student cap being exceeded. This has implications for investment in the construction industry, benefits to the Oxford economy etc.
- PVs – I have discussed this with my colleague [Environmental Sustainability] and [Environmental Sustainability] has confirmed that PVs are not being progressed or considered at this moment in time.
- CAP’s comments on the draft documents – these have been sent to you.
- Programme – it is key that the EIA is submitted at the end of August/beginning of September. A conference is being arranged by [Legal Services] for early August to enable the final documents to be prepared at the end of August. We agreed final drafts should be circulated by 28 July 2014.
- NPA fees – I have written separately on this.
- Badger run – [Legal Services] to confirm the land ownership boundaries.
- NPA to meet the City Council before the EIA is submitted. This has been arranged for 11 July 2014.
- NPA to advise the key parties of the proposed viewpoints.
- Notification of the EIA being submitted needs to be discussed and agreed in terms of distribution of leaflets, notices on site, in the paper etc. NPA to confirm University obligations.
- Planning conditions – we discussed the need for a specific submission relating to the outstanding conditions if it is proposed to change any of the information submitted to date which has not yet been determined and discharged.
I hope you agree with the above. If you have any comments or queries please let me know.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
***********************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 01 July 2014 15:02
To: Nicholas Pearson; Bonvoison Simon (simon@nppconsult.co.uk); Sara Metcalfe; caroline@nppconsult.co.uk; nik Lyzba; Adam Boyden
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Subject: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
Following our conference on 16 June 2014, I noted a number of actions which were agreed to be taken forward by the team with regards to the drafting of the EIA.
I set down the notes I made. These are not intended to be the complete set of actions, as I anticipate I may have missed some of them and may also have noted them differently in terms of their emphasis. Nevertheless I hope the list will be useful in terms of an initial checklist for you.
- Planning chapter – to pick up on the strategic work of the University and the colleges.
- Table to be included detailing the development and the mitigation proposed.
- Schedule of Conditions to be included clarifying whether or not they have been discharged and those which are waiting to be considered by the Planning Committee.
- Energy centre – it is not clear whether the chimney stack height is as approved. This is to be confirmed.
- The position was not clear regarding the discharge of the noise condition. This is to be reviewed.
- The report needs to address the concerns and perception regarding noise of the William Lucy Way residents.
- The noise report needs to be rationalised, at present it is confusing.
- A briefing note will need to be prepared on noise to submit to the William Lucy Way Residents Association immediately before the EIA is submitted.
- Need to check that no ecology surveys are out of date and that the information is reliable.
- Need to establish if the energy centre has been built as approved etc.
- Contamination chapter to be reviewed.
- Need to review Condition 17 and in particular what score has been achieved for the NRIA. Agreed need a socio-economic benefits/impact chapter to be prepared. Need to clarify position regarding implementation of the 2002 planning permission with regards to ground levels and contamination.
- Need to check floor levels of scheme as built against 2002 approved scheme. Has the 2012 development worked to the same AOD as the 2002 scheme.
- Recent planning appeal decision to be reviewed.
- Check University Strategic Plan and Estate Strategy regarding student numbers and increase in post-graduate numbers and accommodation.
- Check if City Council have used £10,000 contribution by University for off-site planting.
- EIA to assess the LDA scheme regarding the landscape mitigation proposed.
- Night effects need to be addressed.
- Review approach required to landscape visual impacts etc as set down in the purple book.
- Need to pick up large scale views and perception of change.
- Element of heritage background should be picked up in policy section/chapter.
- Perception of change needs to be addressed.
- Fluctuation over time, dynamic landscapes as opposed to frozen in time needs to be addressed.
- Blavatnik development needs to be included in analysis. Agreed that viewpoints can be shared with interested parties.
- Alternatives chapter to be finalised.
I hope you agree with the above. If you have any comments or queries please let me know.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
***************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 25 June 2014 08:59
To: Adam Boyden; Sara Metcalfe; Legal Services
Subject: Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Dear Adam,
Following our meeting yesterday I attach as promised the recent email correspondence with the Allotment Holders.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 M: 07876 137925 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
——————————————————–
From: Paul Goffin
Sent: 24 June 2014 09:46
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Dear Carolyn,
To be aware as this may make its way back to NPA if the allotment holders object.
Best,
Paul.
—————————————————-
From: Conservation and Building
Sent: 24 June 2014 09:44
To: Resident
Cc: Conservation and Building; Capital Projects; Paul Goffin
Subject: FW: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Dear [Resident],
I have attached the schedule of work which we agreed with you back in November. As discussed with [Conservation and Building], we can undertake the fencing work with additional ‘fans’ or carry out a short run of timber stakes. It is not feasible to undertake 40m of timber stakes and the associated river dredging.
I have discussed with the Director of Estates and we feel that this is an appropriate response and in line with our original agreement.
Regards
Conservation and Building
—————————————–
From: Conservation and Building
Sent: 15 November 2013 16:37
To: ‘Resident’
Cc: Conservation and Building
Subject: RE: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Dear [Resident],
Comments below
Conservation and Building
—————————————-
From: Resident
Sent: 15 November 2013 16:29
To: Conservation and Building
Subject: RE: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Thanks [Conservation and Building]. So good to get some positive info …A few bits missing/queried? And no other email through? I have attached the schedule of work again
Presumably the retaining wall is for your bit of the badger run on our land below your fencing, continuing on from the slabs? Yes.
No info attached form [Asset & Space Management] re clearance of plots 160-162 and planting. I have suggested that [Asset & Space Management] works up a planting plan with you. [Asset & Space Management] has just provided us with an indicative price based on counting up the number of trees shown on the plan. Otherwise I will be seconding guessing what you want. We have asked him to allow for clearing the fencing etc round the redundant plots.
No info re plan for badger fencing. This land is still in our lease as designated allotment land but obviously cannot be used a such at the moment ….without some info cannot send Environment agency to check if we need any permissions. I have checked with [Parks Supervisor] from Parks and he see no problem. No we haven’t drawn this on plan yet – we have just asked the contractor to price for 20m of fencing – see last item.
There is a large double gate in the fencing through to Badger land so will not need to remove fencing for access but I will need to open and a committee member will need to be on site for any work.
[Resident]
———————————————
From: Conservation and Building
Sent: 15 November 2013 15:44
To: Resident
Cc: Conservation and Building
Subject: FW: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Dear [Resident],
This is the list of works to be carried out. Please note, when [Conservation and Building] went on site, he noted that one end of the badger run – constructed during Phase 1 was falling away (this is the section with the paving slabs which are leant against the bank). There is a cost in the schedule to reinforce this section. We think we can do this work from our side.
The contractors will, however, need access to the allotment to install the new supports for the water butts. They would also like access into the badger run from your side to get machinery into the run. This would involve taking out a section of fence, reinstating – all within one day, then once the work is complete, taking the machine out the same way.
You will see we have allowed a notional run of fence, to go along the riverbank on the fenced off section of land. This was proposed, to deter badger from swimming around the corner. We will need to determine whether any permissions will be required – from the environment agency. We would prefer that any request for permission was made by the allotment holders rather than by the University – although we would pay for the work and any costs. I will let you have more information when we have looked into the issue.
Fruit trees are separate as they have been priced by [Asset & Space Management].
Conservation and Buildings
——————————————
From: Richard Ward Oxford
Sent: 08 November 2013 13:24
To: Conservation and Building
Cc: Conservation and Building; Richard Ward Oxford
Subject: RE: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
[Conservation and Building],
Please find the priced schedule of works document attached as requested.
If you happen to have any other queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
richardwardoxford
c o n s t r u c t i o n
———————————–
From: Conservation and Building
Sent: 08 November 2013 11:35
To: Richard Ward Oxford
Subject: RE: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Please can you itemise the costs on the SOW please and send back at your earliest convenience.
Many thanks,
Conservation and Building
——————————————————-
From: Richard Ward Oxford
Sent: 07 November 2013 18:59
To: Conservation and Building
Cc: Conservation and Building
Subject: FW0021 – Castle Mill – Badger Works etc.
Dear [Conservation and Building],
Further to your enquiry in reference to the above, please find the attached quotation pro-forma, our schedule of work and qualifications that relate all for your attention and approval.
We would note that we have not included for the provisional sum for the ironmongery to the gates at present and hope that we’ve otherwise correctly understood the requirements of this project, please advise if not.
We look forward to your further instruction in due course.
Kind regards
richardwardoxford
c o n s t r u c t i o n
——————————————————
From: Conservation and Building
Sent: 29 October 2013 14:35
To: Richard Ward Oxford
Cc: Richard Ward Oxford
Subject: Castle Mill Works
[Richard Ward Oxford]
I have now received a specification for the construction of the short section of retaining wall – refer attached. I was thinking construction of the eng brick course in the blue/grey colour bricks?
Please let me know if you need to visit site on your return from leave in order to price for its construction (ideally need the costs back by the end of next week).
Any queries please let me know.
Kind Regards,
Conservation and Building
*************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 24 June 2014 09:07
To: Legal Services; adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear [Legal Services] and Adam,
I have been asked to forward this information below (also attached) by Carolyn today. Apologies for the delay.
Kind regards
[Asset and Space Management]
————————————–
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 18 June 2014 17:56
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Capital Projects
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – EIA
Carolyn
Completed as far as we can today. We’re chasing up the remaining two answers
Kind regards
Capital Projects
————————————————–
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 17 June 2014 15:44
To: Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Castle Mill – EIA
Capital Projects
I have started on this for Carolyn. Can you add in info for the other queries where you can.
Capital Projects
—————————————-
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 17 June 2014 08:45
To: Capital Projects; Capital Projects; Asset and Space Management; Capital Projects; Environmental Sustainability
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Paul Goffin; Legal Services
Subject: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
The first draft of the Environmental Impact Assessment has now been prepared and reviewed in a conference with Counsel yesterday.
There are a number of points which I would be grateful if you could consider and update me in order that we can inform the document.
The points include:
- Could [Graduate Accommodation] please confirm if the accommodation was occupied in September or October 2013.
- Could [Graduate Accommodation] please confirm if there is any general parking available for the residents of Phase 2. I appreciate that 3 disabled spaces are specifically provided, and are the residents then able for visitors etc to use the parking already provided at the entrance to Phase 1?
- Was BREEAM Excellent achieved. Still awaiting final evidence from LX. See attached email confirming Excellent score of 70-73 should be achieved
- The footpath and cycleway which runs through the site for public use, is it available only during daylight hours, or is it in fact available 24/7? The permissive path is only for daylight hours, but the gate only shut one day per year to avoid a right of way being established.
- Can you please confirm that the lights falling on the re-located badger sett are limited as proposed. These are as per the agreed design
- Could you please provide an update on the discussions and proposals regarding the PVs. Waiting on note from [Environmental Sustainability]
- Could [Graduate Accommodation] please confirm the hours that the office on site is open in terms of caretakers and their rotas.
- Could you please confirm when the diesel spill was reported to the University. The diesel spill was confirmed in writing on the 2nd July 2013. Please refer to the attached email
- Could you please confirm the timescales for the EA monitoring. The EIA chapter on contamination refers to monitoring until 2015. Please find attached the Unilateral Undertaking agreed with the OCC which sets out timescales for contamination monitoring.
- Could you please confirm the details of the monitoring in the room in Castle Mill as well as the boreholes/wells in the allotments. Three on-site boreholes and four wells on the allotments are tested as per the schedule. These are pumped out and samples then taken from groundwater seeping back in. these are tested for a range of chemicals and compared against WHO trigger levels for drinking water. Sample narrative and full report attached
- Could you please confirm the surface water system as specified was installed.
Condition 14- There is No Infiltration of Surface water drainage into ground in accordance with submitted approved details.
This leads on to condition 15 – A sustainable drainage scheme is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. I have attached the written approval for condition 15 from the LPA.
- There is a degree of confusion regarding the energy centre and in particular the stack. It is understood that the stack provided is lower than that approved, but we are not able to establish that this revision was agreed, nor in particular that the revision does not have any impact on air quality. Can the energy centre operate as planned now that the stack is lower than approved, and is it having an adverse impact on the air quality. – To follow
- Could you please confirm the number of units on each floor and type of unit. (see attached schedule)
If you have any queries regarding the above please let me know.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 18 June 2014 09:50
To: adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk; nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk; Legal Services
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to forward on my behalf.
Following the email below, please see the response I have received which I hope clarifies some points of the draft EIA.
Best wishes
Carolyn
————————————————
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 17 June 2014 10:31
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: RE: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear Carolyn
Here are the answers to the questions you requested.
- Could [Graduate Accommodation] please confirm if the accommodation was occupied in September or October 2013.
We first had tenants take up tenancies from 23 September. Block D was late being handed back to us but some residents managed to take occupancy from 30 September 2013.
- Could [Graduate Accommodation] please confirm if there is any general parking available for the residents of Phase 2. I appreciate that 3 disabled spaces are specifically provided, and are the residents then able for visitors etc to use the parking already provided at the entrance to Phase 1?
The residents in Phase 2 have the same access as the residents in Phase 1 to temporary visitor parking permits. I have attached the email that you sent to [Student] regarding the rules on parking at Castle Mill. [Student] is a Phase 1 tenant but the same rules have been applied to phase 2 residents as we were asked to. I would advise that a number of residents in phase 2 still break the rules from time to time and our only way of dealing with this is to contact Security Services to issue them with parking fines so they will not do it again.
Phase 2 residents signed a tenancy agreement which stated that the tenant agrees to:
- Could [Graduate Accommodation] please confirm the hours that the office on site is open in terms of caretakers and their rotas.
Caretaker Rota
[Graduate Accommodation] working hours Monday to Thursday are 08.15 – 16.45, working hours on Friday: 08.30 – 16.00, Lunch break 12.00 – 13.00
[Graduate Accommodation] working hours Monday to Friday are 8.45 – 17.00, Lunch break: 12.30 – 13.30
[Graduate Accommodation] working hours Monday to Friday are 9.00 – 17.15, Lunch break: 13.00 – 14.00
[Graduate Accommodation] and [Graduate Accommodation] work 36.5hrs the same as all the other caretakers but as requested we note their hours on paperwork to the nearest 15 mins)
When there are only 2 caretakers on site, the lunch breaks will be 12.00 – 13.00 and 13.00 – 14.00
The office is not always manned as all 3 caretakers are usually up on site dealing with various issues.
Kind regards
[Graduate Accommodation]
*****************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 11 June 2014 14:19
To: Legal Services; adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Plans for woodland – FYI
Dear Adam and [Legal Services],
Carolyn has asked me to forward the messages below to keep you ‘in the loop’
Kind regards
[Asset and Space Management]
—————————————————
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 11 June 2014 09:31
To: Carolyn Puddicombe; Paul Goffin
Subject: FW: Plans for woodland
Dear Carolyn and Paul,
FYI. Picked up from my cc: message box this morning.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management
———————————————–
From: Resident
Sent: 10 June 2014 19:00
To: Network Rail [job title unknown]
Cc: Residents; Councillor UPTON Louise
Subject: Plans for woodland
Dear [Network Rail]
[Asset and Space Management] of the University of Oxford has passed on to me your email to him in relation to the possibility of planting in the wooded area facing William Lucy Way.
In your email you say “This proposal has been circulated for comments within the various departments of Network Rail. One of the main concerns raised is that we cannot say for certain at this moment in time whether there will be a future need to utilise the wooded area. A long time ago we believe this area was used as a railway yard. We would like to put the proposal for planting on hold for the time being until the overhead electrification scheme and the Oxford to Bicester line redoubling works are further developed. We apologise if we have raised expectations. If you wish to still inspect the area to see if planting is feasible this can be arranged.”
We found this comment surprising, and think it is based on a misunderstanding of the area being discussed. We have checked old maps and can say with some certainty that the currently wooded area was never a railway yard. The Council has also confirmed to us that all old OS maps show it as marshland. It is still regularly flooded. Any attempt to turn this into usable land would be very likely to cause flooding in adjacent areas, in particular over the railway lines. These are currently protected by the woodland absorbing some of the flood water. We would be very happy to arrange a visit so that you can see for yourself.
In any event we see no reason why uncertainty over the plans for the railway development should preclude the University doing some planting now. This would not be a major expense from the University side but would improve the area while not changing anything for the future. Indeed, the plans for further rails and electrification would seem to warrant investment in the woodland since the need to protect the land on which the rails are built is even greater as is the need to shield your neighbours. It is also an important haven for wild life which I am sure your company would wish to protect. We would therefore be grateful if you could agree to the University getting on with the planting and management of this woodland to keep it healthy.
With regard to the noise, we are obviously grateful for any measures that can be taken to reduce engine noise. However, as discussed at the meeting, the current issue for us is also the increase in noise since the construction of the new University buildings on the other side of the lines. Our interest therefore is whether readings were taken before these buildings were constructed and if these could be made available to us, to compare with the current position.
Yours sincerely
[Resident]
******************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 05 June 2014 08:03
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Sara Metcalfe
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Update for your WLWRA meeting
Dear All,
Please see below and attached in terms of WLW Residents and Network Rail response.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 M: 07876 137925 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————————————————————-
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 04 June 2014 15:19
To: Paul Goffin; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Update for your WLWRA meeting
Dear Paul and Carolyn,
I send you the update sent to [Resident] and other members of the group, for your information.
Thanks for your respective comments and input on this.
Best wishes,
Asset and Space Management
——————————————
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 04 June 2014 15:14
To: Resident, Network Rail; Tree Officer; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Cc: Residents
Subject: Update for your WLWRA meeting
Dear [Resident],
For ease of reference, I attach the original note of 18 February.
I have now received a response from [Name redacted – job title unknown] at Network Rail and attach this for your attention, together with the location of the sub-station that is referred to. On specific matters:-
Blinds at Castle Mill
The University installed automatic operating blinds for Easter, although there have been some issues with some of the control system daylight sensors. As a result, I am informed that the University is proposing a Wi-Fi operated system and once a number of technical matters are approved, this should be ready for installation later this month. It is hoped that this will provide a greater degree of control over the blinds.
Access to island site for survey and planting etc
You will note what [Network Rail] has said in respect of Network Rail’s plans for the area. Clearly this is disappointing, although [Network Rail] does leave open the possibility of inspecting the area nonetheless. I suggest that it would be helpful to know the timeframe that they are working to in respect of the overhead electrification scheme and Oxford to Bicester line redoubling works.
Sodium Lighting
I note that [Resident] was taking a lead in discussions with Network Rail on the sodium lighting. Again, you will see what [Resident] has said in relation to covers etc for the lights.
Network Rail Feedback re construction of additional line and potential for increased freight traffic
Latest position provided by Network Rail’s response.
Acoustic Survey and Test Panels
The Environmental Impact Report is currently being drafted at present and it is considered that it would be helpful to wait for its publication, as it will provide information that may assist in these areas.
If I am able to provide you with any further help or assistance at this time, please do let me know.
All best wishes,
Asset and Space Management
————————————————
From: Resident
Sent: 06 May 2014 16:07
To: Asset and Space Management; Network Rail; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Many thanks indeed. I hope progress can be made so that we can be ready for planting when the season comes.
best wishes
[Resident]
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 06 May 2014 15:58
To: Resident; Network Rail; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear [Resident],
Many thanks for your reply.
I note the various actions that you are undertaking.
We are waiting on [Network Rail] to confirm arrangements for access to the land, in order that we might survey it and progress matters for eventual planting.
We are also awaiting further details from Phillip regarding readings etc.
I will come back by the end of this month to report further, if not before.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
———————————————
From: Resident
Sent: 06 May 2014 11:18
To: Asset and Space Management; Network Rail; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear [Asset and Space Management],
I apologise for not replying in detail on this for various personal reasons.
I have reported the developments to the WLWRA and we await further news with interest. We are also talking to Pearsons as part of their retrospective EIA.
We note that the blinds have been fitted and that helps a little, thank you, although they do not all seem to work in one of the buildings. The sodium lighting continues to light up the buildings – [Resident] is going to take the lead on discussing this with Network Rail.
We hope that progress has been made by the University and Network Rail on the trees behind our houses- surveying and drawing up a planting plan. I think this will make a difference. The trees do provide quite good cover already, but we have broken branches hanging and gaps. I am sure this could be improved and helps in the summer at least (in my view with the noise too, although all the experts say it does not).
On the noise, we await the report with interest and hope that some attempt ahs been made to find the figures from the various reports of Chiltern Rail etc. There were also presumably readings taken when Berkley Homes applied for planning permission to build our houses. We are concerned about the use of models which are, of course, always dependent on assumptions. As plans continue to develop the railway further we really do need to find a way to reduce the noise that now bounces back to us from the flats. I believe Pearsons are in touch with you on this too, so I hope that all the efforts can be drawn together as at the moment we do not always know who knows what.
Many thanks for your work on co-ordinating this mitigation effort and we look forward to hearing more at the end of May If not before.
Kind regards
[Resident]
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 27 March 2014 13:20
To: Network Rail [Name redacted – job title unknown]; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; Resident; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Subject: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear All,
Please find attached the University’s original summary of the meeting held on 18 February, together with actions arising. You will note that given the time that has elapsed, I have provided a post meeting update and a proposed timeline.
I would welcome feedback on any events/actions that have occurred since the meeting that all those who attended should be made aware of.
I would like to once again thank [Resident] and [Resident] for hosting the event.
[Resident]– I do not have an e-mail address for the [Residents], so should be very grateful if you could either provide this to me so as I may send this to them or pass it on for their attention.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
*************************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 30 May 2014 11:21
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services; Asset and Space Management; Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear Adam,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
I have forwarded to you earlier this morning the notes of the meeting held with the William Lucy Way Residents Association.
[Asset and Space Management] is away this week, but I hope will be able to reply to you next week with regards to accessing the Network Rail woodland. I know we are having difficulties establishing contact with the right people and securing the necessary agreements.
With regards to the lines, this is being monitored and addressed by the University. I agree with you that we should avoid undertaking a light spill survey.
Again with regards to the sodium lighting and Network Rail, it is proving difficult to speak to the right people.
I hope the above is sufficient update until [Asset and Space Management] is back in the office next week.
Best wishes
Carolyn,
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————————————————————-
From: Adam Boyden [mailto:adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk]
Sent: 29 May 2014 16:07
To: Asset and Space Management
Cc: Philip Hankin; Capital Projects; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Carolyn Puddicombe; Legal Services
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear [Asset and Space Management] ,
FYI we are taking forward Philip’s draft Environmental Statement chapter and submitting that and other chapters to Carolyn Puddicombe and [Legal Services] for their review. Please can you send me the University’s note of the meeting with WLWRA and the actions arising (I don’t believe I have it).
Please can you let us know how arrangements for accessing the Network Rail woodland are coming along, as we will need an Ecologist and a Landscape Architect to have a good look over that site, if any planting / management is at all feasible in order to respond to WLWRA concerns.
I note [resident’s] comments on the performance of the blinds. Can you let us know if their effectiveness is being checked? We may need to recommend a light spill survey here but would like to avoid the need if possible.
Also the sodium lighting I assume is Network Rail’s responsibility to respond to [Resident’s] concerns about it lighting up the Castle Mill buildings in views from William Lucy Way – this may be an ongoing issue but please do let me know any progress in your discussions.
Best regards,
Adam Boyden
————————————————
From: Philip Hankin [mailto:philip.hankin@colejarman.com]
Sent: 20 May 2014 12:49
To: Asset and Space Management ‘
Cc: Adam Boyden; Capital Projects
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
[Asset and Space Management]
We have prepared our draft noise EIA chapter and this is currently with Adam Borden for his review and comment (a copy of the draft is attached FY), once we have any comments we can make any final adjustments as necessary.
In terms of the existing noise survey undertaken at the William Lucy Way flats in 2009, there is a lack of detail in the report by Network Rail as to where exactly the measurements were made at the flats. I am sure we could find the relevant detail, but we really need to steer away reference to absolute measurements.
As the noise climate is heavily influenced by the railway, it will vary depending on what rail traffic passes during any day and night time period. To this end if we chose to try and duplicate the Network Rail measurements we may get very different results, which would only serve to confuse matters as any difference may not be directly attributable to the presence of the flats opposite, but due to other factors such as more freight trains on any one day for example.
Network Rail themselves use predictive models to consider the effects of developments and changes to the tracks and the following stock using it and this is why we have adopted a similar approach in the EIA. In the case of the new flats, it is what effects the presence of the facade to cause additional reflection, rather than a consideration of the absolute level on any particular day due to any one set of train movements.
Please have a read through the EIA chapter and let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything further that we could usefully provide.
Regards
Philip Hankin Director
Cole Jarman
John Cree House, 24B High Street, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 1TN
t +44 (0)1932 829007 f +44 (0)1932 829003
http://www.colejarman.com
*****************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 30 May 2014 07:18
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Sara Metcalfe
Subject: FW: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear Adam,
Following your email yesterday please find notes attached.
Reply on other points to follow.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk www.admin.ox.ac.uk/estates
************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 06 May 2014 18:29
To: Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Adam Boyden; Sara Metcalfe
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear All,
Please see the email trail below with the WLWRA.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
——————————————————————————–
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 06 May 2014 17:36
To: Paul Goffin; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear Paul and Carolyn,
I was asked to keep you both informed on this.
Please see below.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
——————————————————————-
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 06 May 2014 15:59
To: Resident; Network Rail [Name redacted – job title unknown]; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear [Resident],
Many thanks for your reply.
I note the various actions that you are undertaking.
We are waiting on [Network Rail] to confirm arrangements for access to the land, in order that we might survey it and progress matters for eventual planting.
We are also awaiting further details from Phillip regarding readings etc.
I will come back by the end of this month to report further, if not before.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
——————————————————-
From: Resident
Sent: 06 May 2014 11:18
To: Asset and Space Management; Network Rail; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear [Asset and Space Management],
I apologise for not replying in detail on this for various personal reasons.
I have reported the developments to the WLWRA and we await further news with interest. We are also talking to Pearsons as part of their retrospective EIA.
We note that the blinds have been fitted and that helps a little, thank you, although they do not all seem to work in one of the buildings. The sodium lighting continues to light up the buildings – [Resident] is going to take the lead on discussing this with Network Rail.
We hope that progress has been made by the University and Network Rail on the trees behind our houses- surveying and drawing up a planting plan. I think this will make a difference. The trees do provide quite good cover already, but we have broken branches hanging and gaps. I am sure this could be improved and helps in the summer at least (in my view with the noise too, although all the experts say it does not).
On the noise, we await the report with interest and hope that some attempt ahs been made to find the figures from the various reports of Chiltern Rail etc. There were also presumably readings taken when Berkley Homes applied for planning permission to build our houses. We are concerned about the use of models which are, of course, always dependent on assumptions. As plans continue to develop the railway further we really do need to find a way to reduce the noise that now bounces back to us from the flats. I believe Pearsons are in touch with you on this too, so I hope that all the efforts can be drawn together as at the moment we do not always know who knows what.
Many thanks for your work on co-ordinating this mitigation effort and we look forward to hearing more at the end of May If not before.
Kind regards
[Resident]
From: Asset and Space Management
Sent: 27 March 2014 13:20
To: Network Rail [Name redacted – job title unknown]; Tree Officer, OCC; ‘mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk’; Resident; ‘philip.hankin@colejarman.com’; Capital Projects
Subject: Note of meeting on 18 February and updates/actions
Dear All,
Please find attached the University’s original summary of the meeting held on 18 February, together with actions arising. You will note that given the time that has elapsed, I have provided a post meeting update and a proposed timeline.
I would welcome feedback on any events/actions that have occurred since the meeting that all those who attended should be made aware of.
I would like to once again thank [Resident] and [Resident] for hosting the event.
[Resident]– I do not have an e-mail address for the [Residents], so should be very grateful if you could either provide this to me so as I may send this to them or pass it on for their attention.
Best wishes,
[Asset and Space Management]
*********************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 29 April 2014 10:40
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Sara Metcalfe; nik.lyzba@jppc.co.uk
Cc: Legal Services; Capital Projects; Capital Projects
Subject: FW: Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear All,
Following out meeting last week I attach below the email trial with the City Council regarding the non-material amendments.
I have copied [Capital Projects] and [Capital Projects] and ask that they ensure NPA have the drawings which were shown to the City Council and on which the email trail below relies.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
———————————————————————-
From: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael [mailto:mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 April 2014 08:12
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Paul Goffin; Legal Services; Capital Projects; HANCOCK Murray; EDWARDS David
Subject: RE: Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear Carolyn
Thank you for highlighting these amendments. Murray Hancock has had an opportunity to view drawings showing each of these very minor amendments at your offices. I can confirm that the City Council has come to the view that these are of so minor a nature that they did not need to be formally notified to the City Council.
This is the same approach that the City Council takes with other such amendments with comparable developments.
Michael Crofton-Briggs
Head of City Development
T: 01865 252360
—————————————————————-
From: Carolyn Puddicombe [mailto:carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 February 2014 18:06
To: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael
Cc: Paul Goffin; Legal Services; Capital Projects
Subject: Castle Mill Phase 2 Roger Dudman Way
Dear Michael,
On the basis the construction of Castle Mill Phase 2 at Roger Dudman way has now been completed, the design team working with the contractors have undertaken a review of the development as built against the plans as approved under the planning permission.
The team have identified a number of amendments which we consider to be non-material. The list comprises:
- Reduction in height of the baffle gates to the NE elevation to 2.1m
- Removal of the window shrouds to the north, west and south facades, (east window shrouds were retained).
- Roof detail amended behind the stair case pods to blocks 5 and 8.
- Duraclad cladding omitted above the corridor windows to the east and west facades.
- Slight reduction in the width of the windows throughout the scheme.
- Substation roof is now GRP.
- The louvre on the west elevation of the energy centre is Duraclad at the top and powder coated aluminium lower down.
- The installed roof lights to the foyer of the Gatehouse are slightly smaller than originally proposed.
- As shown in the submitted materials drawings, the lift tower roofs have been simplified with just a parapet.
- The cycle shelters have been straightened instead of being curved in plan
I am advised that these changes were discussed with the application case officer.
The PVs which were approved were not included in the scheme. We are currently discussing whether they should be introduced.
Could you please confirm to me that the City Council consider that the amendments detailed above are indeed non material and as such have no impact on the planning permission.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
*********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 26 April 2014 17:06
To: Nicholas Pearson; Adam Boyden; Sara Metcalfe
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: Fwd: Castle Mill Allotment Well Monitoring – April 2014 results and narrative
Dear All,
Please see below and attached.
I am not sure if you need to be briefed but am of the view better to copy all papers to you and let you decide.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset and Space Management
01865 280801
07876 137925
——————————————————————————————–
From: Capital Projects
Date: 25 April 2014 16:12:21 BST
To: Paul Goffin <paulf.goffin@admin.ox.ac.uk>, Carolyn Puddicombe <carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: FW: Castle Mill Allotment Well Monitoring – April 2014 results and narrative
Dear Both
Latest results and report FYI
Best wishes
Capital Projects
—————————————
From: Bob Hughes [mailto:Bob.Hughes@esg.co.uk]
Sent: 25 April 2014 14:50
To: Capital Projects
Cc: Capital Projects; stuart.macmillan@frankham.com; Capital Projects; Charlotte.Reeve@esg.co.uk
Subject: Castle Mill Allotment Well Monitoring – April 2014 results and narrative
Dear Nigel,
Please find attached our narrative relating to the pertinent points on the results for March’s allotment well monitoring.
Kind regards,
Bob Hughes
Senior Environmental Scientist
Bob Hughes
Senior Environmental Scientist
For and on behalf of Environmental Scientifics Group Ltd
T: 01622 632100
T: 01622 632173 (Direct Line)
F: 01622 739620
*******************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 23 April 2014 09:20
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Castle Mill EIA
Dear Adam,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
Thank you for your email dated 15 April 2014 and attached programme. I appreciate that we will discuss this when we meet tomorrow. Nevertheless I thought it would be useful if I set down my initial comments.
With regards to the programme and your note that it may be beneficial for the EIA and heritage assessments to be consistent with the Council’s draft emerging view cone guidance. I understand the principle that this would be the preferred way forward, but am concerned that this would result in extended delays to the overall preparation and submission of the documents. If is considered that the LVIA’s should be progressed on this basis, I think we would need to understand what the delays to the final rafting would be and would need to agree these delays with the interested parties.
I note the meetings you are looking to arrange and confirm my agreement that you should proceed with these. I do not think the University need to attend them.
With regards to student numbers in private residences, the University makes an annual submission to the City Council. His rests with colleagues in the Planning & Resource Allocation Section. Nik Lyzba has also raised this with me and it would be useful to discuss this when we meet tomorrow. Nik has also asked what the timing is for the preparation of this chapter.
I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 22 April 2014 11:45
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Sara Metcalfe
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear All,
Please see below and attached.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 M: 07876 137925 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
MEMORANDUM
To : Roof sheet manufacturer Date : 14th April 2014
CC : Capital projects Ref :
From : Simon Gibb
Dear Graham
Oxford University Student Accommodation Project – Castle Mill: Rigidal Ziploc Roofing System – Surface Treatment Alternatives
Many thanks for your time on the telephone on Monday 14th April.
As explained, I am an external building surveyor working with the University of Oxford on a number of projects in and around the city.
Whilst not a project of mine, the University recently completed a block of student accommodation close to the railway station at Oxford called Castle Mill. The main contractor was Longcross and I understand the product they ordered from you (and had installed) was: –
Rigidal Ziploc 400 aluminium seam roofing, polyester powder coated (Ral no. 7012)
Whilst it is my understanding that the University have no issue with your product, the development has gained some notoriety locally in that, whilst it obtained planning consent, some local residents are objecting to it.
In seeking to ameliorate those concerns, the University has resolved to look into methods available to them to ‘dull down’ the current sheen on the roof sheeting which can be viewed from that part of Oxford from where some of the objections are being raised.
I have been commissioned by Oxford University Estates Services – in particular [Capital Projects & Project Management] – to assist in investigating options to achieve that dulling of the finish of the roof sheeting.
I have considered doing it in one of three ways, recognising that over time the finish itself will dull down by UV degradation but the University wants to effectively accelerate that process in response to concerns raised by residents.
The three methods I was looking into included inter alia: –
- The provision of some form of an open mesh netting over the roof to achieve that effect by camouflaging the finish beneath but in doing so I recognise that this is fraught with its own problems in terms of snagging debris and producing a mottled finish, etc.
- Overspraying the existing roof sheeting – using someone like Buckingham Coatings – to achieve a finish which is duller than the current. This again carries with it its own problems in that to do this properly, edge protection will need to be provided to each of the student roof blocks, with all of the contingent costs and disruption this would give rise to.
- Applying a diluted water-based adhesive coating onto the roof to effectively attract dirt and debris onto the surface without impacting on the functional performance of the covering beneath.
It is the last option which you and I discussed in particular detail.
The solution I was thinking of spraying was effectively a diluted PVA adhesive (or ‘Unibond’ to use its generic name) which could possibly be effectively applied by operatives from mechanised access platform equipment onto the roof sheeting without any prior preparation onto the roof covering.
I attach the relevant product sheet of that adhesive with the request that you consider whether and to what extent you believe it would impact adversely on the integrity of the finish applied to your roof sheeting system or not.
I do accept the caution you expressed in our telephone call about the risk of this too creating a mottled effect, but it will be my intention (if I can establish that it would effectively be an inert coating onto your roof sheeting system) to undertake a trial of a selected section of roof before doing the whole entity.
It is possible that others within the University – and [Capital Projects] or [Capital Projects]– may have already been in touch with you on this topic, in which case I do apologise in advance.
I am not sure whether and to what extent however any of them have yet thought of the diluted PVA solution which I believe might be far simpler to install than paint overspraying and may give the University the effect they are seeking quickly and at modest cost.
If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards.
Yours,
Simon Gibb for tmd Building Consultancy Ltd Encl: Product sheet
——————————————————–
From: tmd chartered surveyors
Sent: 16 April 2014 10:13
To: Carolyn Puddicombe
Cc: Asset and Space Management
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear Carolyn,
Following Simon’s email below, find attached a copy of the email and memo sent to Graham Rankin at Rigidal regarding roof surface treatment.
Kind regards,
tmd chartered surveyors
————————————
From: Simon Gibb
Sent: 16 April 2014 04:49
To: ‘Carolyn Puddicombe’
Cc: tmd chartered surveyors
Subject: RE: Castle Mill – EIA
Carolyn
RE: Castle Mill – EIA
I have an enquiry to the roof sheet manufacturer following discussions with [Capital Projects]
I will get my office to copy you in on the email issued to them and keep you and [Capital projects] advised of their response
Regards
Simon
CC Capital Projects
**************************************************
From: Asset and Space Management On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 15 April 2014 14:58
To: adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk; Nicholas Pearson; Sara Metcalfe
Cc: Legal Services; Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Castle Mill EIA
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
I am conscious that we have still not managed to speak to enable me to be updated regarding the progress being made by you in respect of the Voluntary Environmental Statement.
Could you please liaise with [Asset and Space Management], and endeavour to arrange a meeting so that we can review progress to date, anticipated programme etc. I think it would be useful if you could meet [Legal Services] and me. [Asset and Space Management] has access to [Legal Services’s] diary, and I have asked that she endeavour to arrange this with you.
I am aware from the draft Minutes of the meeting with CPRE and the Campaign to Save Port Meadow Group that issues were raised with you regarding the monitoring of the ground. I confirm that the University entered into a unilateral undertaking with the City Council which sets down the approach to be adopted, timescales etc for the monitoring which has been ongoing and we continue to undertake the necessary surveys, measurements and provide the data to the City Council.
We have also recently had discussions with the City Council regarding certain amendments which were made to the scheme during the construction period. These have now been reviewed by the City Council and they have confirmed that they consider them be de minimis. We think it is important that in terms of the Voluntary Environmental Statement that you work on the basis of the as built drawings. Could you please address this with Frankhams.
I have emailed you separately regarding the roof and alternative measures/opportunities for mitigation which are being researched, to ensure that this is also picked up in the overall report.
I understand that it has now been agreed with regards to the landscape mitigation which was again considered by the University that this should be put on hold whilst the EIA is being prepared. This is in relation to the site itself. I confirm that the planting which was agreed for the allotments is being undertaken at present.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes
Carolyn
****************************
From: Asset and Space Management [On Behalf Of Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 15 April 2014 11:58
To: adam.boyden@npaconsult.co.uk; Sara Metcalfe; Nicholas Pearson; Simon Gibb
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Capital Projects; Legal Services
Subject: Castle Mill – EIA
Dear All,
I have asked [Asset and Space Management] to send this to you on my behalf.
The University has been asked to review the roof treatment of the development at Castle Mill.
I am not sure if we have briefed you, or if you have picked this up in your discussions with the contractor and design team, but the roof materials were changed during the course of the construction of the project. My understanding is that the original material was more “matt” in colour and also the material changed.
The University has appointed Simon Gibb of tmd, copied in to this email, to undertake research to establish what if anything could be done to the roof.
Could you please liaise with Simon to ensure that you are fully briefed on this with regards to the work you are progressing on the EIA and the need to involve this work in the overall report and assessment.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
*****************************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 26 February 2014 17:46
To: Nicholas Pearson; Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – Additional Blinds to Communal Corridors (email 1 of 2)
Dear Nicholas and Adam,
Please see below and attached – part of the immediate mitigation works which I anticipate you will need to take into account.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
Please note new address with effect 28 November 2013
The Malthouse, Tidmarsh Lane, Oxford, OX1 1NQ
T: 01865 280801 E: carolyn.puddicombe@admin.ox.ac.uk
——————————————————————————————————–
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 26 February 2014 15:35
To: Michael Crofton-Briggs
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Capital Projects; Paul Goffin
Subject: Castle Mill – Additional Blinds to Communal Corridors (email 1 of 2)
REFERENCE EML-OUT/349-10-077/677
For the attention of Michael Crofton-Briggs
Dear Michael
Further to your meeting with Paul, Carolyn and [Capital Projects], I attach a set of elevations, identifying the windows that will have new automatic blinds installed, in addition to the occupied room that have manual blinds. The automatic blinds will close at dusk and reopen at dawn, without tenant input.
The University has appointed a contractor, who is due to complete the installation before the agreed Easter deadline.
A second email, with remaining block elevations and location plan will follow.
Kind regards
Capital Projects
*****************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 26 February 2014 17:45
To: Nicholas Pearson; Adam Boyden
Cc: Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill – Additional Blinds to Communal Corridors (email 2 of 2)
Dear Both,
Please see below and attached – I suspect you may need this at some stage.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
—————————————————————————-
From: Capital Projects
Sent: 26 February 2014 15:36
To: Michael Crofton-Briggs
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe; Capital Projects; Paul Goffin
Subject: Re: Castle Mill – Additional Blinds to Communal Corridors (email 2 of 2)
REFERENCE EML-OUT/349-10-077/678
For the attention of Michael Crofton-Briggs
Second attachment
Kind regards
*****************************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 24 February 2014 14:02
To: Nicholas Pearson; Adam Boyden
Cc: Emma Gilmour; Legal Services
Subject: FW: Castle Mill WAPC
Dear Nicholas and Adam,
Please see my draft notes attached of the discussion at WAPC on 11 February regarding the Castle Mill update.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
Estates Services | University of Oxford
********************************
From: Carolyn Puddicombe
Sent: 10 February 2014 08:39
To: Adam Boyden; Nicholas Pearson (nicholas.pearson@npaconsult.co.uk); Legal Services
Subject: FW: Letter re: West Area Planning Meeting on 11 February
Dear All,
And another to be aware of!
Best wishes,
Carolyn
Carolyn Puddicombe BSc (Hons) FRICS
Director of Asset & Space Management
Asset & Space Management
——————————————————-
From: CROFTON-BRIGGS Michael [mailto:mcrofton-briggs@oxford.gov.uk]
Sent: 10 February 2014 08:36
To: Paul Goffin
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: FW: Letter re: West Area Planning Meeting on 11 February
Dear Paul
A letter for you to be aware of.
Michael Crofton-Briggs
Head of City Development
T: 01865 252360
************************************
From: Legal Services
Sent: 03 February 2014 11:11
To: Adam Boyden
Cc: Carolyn Puddicombe
Subject: Background documents for Castle Mill
Dear Mr Boyden,
Thank you for your time on the telephone earlier today.
As discussed, I attach some background documents on the Castle Mill case for your information including:
- a) the original report to committee on the application for planning permission which was granted in August 2012,
- b) the update report to committee from late last year,
- c) the judgment of the High Court in the CPRE’s judicial review of the Council’s decision last May not to discontinue the development
- d) The ‘scoping’ letter sent by the University in October last year and the consultation responses received.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.
Kind regards
[Legal Services]
Save Port Meadow 