West Way Community Concern

Freedom of Information

Page updated 8th Apr 2018

Information released by the Vale under Freedom of Information Act and Enviromental Information Regulations

For more information, please contact WWCC at westwayconcern@gmail.com.

New (8th April 2018) – documents relating to the decision to reduce the sale price (March 2018)

C&W Report_September 2017 – redacted

C&W Summary of latest funding agreement Jan 18 – redacted

Cabinet report – West Way Botley – October 2017 – redacted

DA – final variations site 1 and site 2 Botley – signed – redacted

Scrutiny Sept 2017 – West Way, Botley – redacted

(1st Mar 2018) – Unredacted documents relating to land sale agreement (2012)

Cabinet exempt minutes – 7 December 2012

Record of decision -Aug 11

Record of decision -April 12

Appendix to Cabinet report 7 December 2012 – financial appraisal

Appendix to Cabinet report 7 December 2012 – funding strategy

Appendix to Cabinet report 7 December 2012 – West Way development area plan

Background to Cabinet report 7 December 2012 – DTZ West Way report

Confidential report to Cabinet 7 December 2012 – Sale of West Way

Development appraisal, Latham High, 13 December

New (31st Jan 2018) – Documents on Mace’s Affordable Housing Viability Statement

Documents released following ruling by Information Commissioner that Vale were not justified in withholding the information

Oxford Botley Centre Viability Submission_Main Report – unredacted

Oxford Botley Centre Viability Submission Addendum May 2016 full – unredacted

Viability Appraisal Report – WestWay Botley – Adams Integra -April 2016 – unredacted

Information on Vale’s costs and revenue with respect to West Way Shopping Centre

response 1 – legal and professional costs for proposed sale of WWSC and preparation of SPD

response 2 – revenue from WWSC and costs; spreadsheet NH005; service-charge-transaction-listing; service-charge-transaction-listing-2; service-charge-transaction-listing-3

Documents on Mace’s Affordable Housing Viability Statement – redacted documents

New document released 13 March 2017: Viability Appraisal Report – WestWay Botley – Adams Integra -April 2016 – redacted for release

Oxford Botley Centre Viability Submission_Report Final printed

Oxford Botley Centre Viability Submission Addendum May 2016 full printed

Oxford Botley Centre Viability Email re Purchase Price AI 2016 6 6 printed

appendix 1 Ownership-Plan-1612-X-09-B

appendix 2 151127_GA Plans_updated

appendix 3 160120_Botley Master plan_Area Schedule

appendix 4 Timescale Assumptions 2016 2 29

appendix 5 Botley Centre Developer Appraisal 2016 2 25 policy compliant printed

appendix 6 botley resi comps

appendix 7 GDV Calculator resi printed

appendix 8 GDV Calculator student printed

appendix 9 West Way Botley – Ver A Rev A – Cost Plan printed

appendix 10 Botley Centre Developer Appraisal 2016 2 25 10% starter homes printed

New: Information related to materials containing asbestos in the West Way Shopping Centre

Asbestos review 2015; Botley Management Report ; Westway shopping centre asbestos register ; Asbestos Management Plan Public Conveniences ; Chapel Way Public Toilets

Seacourt Hall is the responsibility of North Hinksey Parish Council

Further information relating the the Supplementary Planning Document (released 8th Jan 2016)

DTZ report – The West Way Shopping Centre; Assessment of Development Options (redacted)

Summary of Freedom of Information requests can be found in the links below:

Request for information relating to the award of the contract to Doric

Request for information relating to the Supplementary Planning Document

Information relating the the Supplementary Planning Document (released 26th Oct 2015)

DTZ report: Assessment of Development Options – Viability and Deliverability, July 2015

Cushman & Wakefield report: The West Way Shopping Centre Assessment of Development Options, Sept 2015

Information released concerning the Supplementary Planning Document

Covering letter

Notes of meeting, 15 April 2015

Notes of meeting, 6 May 2015

Notes of meeting, 1 June 2015

Notes of meeting, 8 July2015

Information released concerning the marketing and sale of West Way Shopping Centre, and adjacent office buildings

Heads of Terms for sale of West Way Shopping Centre to Doric Properties, Sept 2011

Marketing co-operation agreement for sale of Site 1, Feb 2011

Information released to reflect decision of First Tier Tribunal

DTZ report to Cabinet, 7 December 2012

Report of Cabinet Member Decision 30 April 2012

Decision report from the First Tier Tribunal, received 25th June

Further information released by the Vale (12th June 2015) is available via the links below:

Information provided by the Vale, prior to and during the First-Tier Tribunal (31st March / 1st April 2015)

Cushman & Wakefield marketing document

Information received by email from the VWHDC, 12 June 2014, including criteria for selection of preferred bidder

Extract of notes from Cabinet meetings attended by Doric

List of unsuccessful bidders

Open Bundle 2, provided in advance of Tribunal. This contains minutes of Cabinet meetings, records of Cabinet member decisions, and a report prepared by DTZ on behalf of the VWHDC

Un-redactions from Open Bundle 2

Clauses from the Vale / Doric Agreement; clauses on Freedom of Information and Confidentiality


Mary Gill, 5th May 2015

In November 2013, I submitted a request to the Vale District Council for information about the decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Doric Properties for the sale of WWSC and the nearby office blocks, Seacourt Community Hall and the Baptist Church. As we know, this agreement with Doric paved the way for the planning application for ‘Botley District Centre’, which was rejected by the Vale Planning Committee in December 2014.

My request

My request to the Vale was:

I request information on the decision to award a contract to Doric Properties for the development of the West Way Centre, including, but not limited to:

1 Bid documentation provided to prospective bidders;
2 Process for and criteria for selection of successful bidder;
3 Number of organisations who expressed an interest in bidding;
4 Number of organisations who submitted a bid;
5 Names of organisations who submitted a bid;
6 Minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject.

The Vale informed me that my request came under Environmental Information Regulations rather than the Freedom of Information Act. The difference is that the Environmental Information Regulations require stronger evidence to support withholding information than does Freedom of Information, but both acts are in place to facilitate ‘more effective participation by the public in environmental decision making’.

I felt that the public had had no active part in the decision to select Doric, and their proposed scheme for Botley. We were not even informed about it until the Agreement was signed to sell the West Way Shopping Centre and to consider Compulsory Purchase Orders of land owned by others.

I complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), who upheld my complaint. The Vale were instructed to release the information as requested. They released some further information, in September 2014,  but refused any further release and appealed against the ICO’s decision.

The appeal was heard by the First Tier Tribunal, in London, over two days; 31st March to 1st April.

Prior to the Tribunal, (and following the announcement that Doric/Mace were likely to withdraw their appeal against the planning decision), the Vale released some further information in redacted form (i.e. some bits which the Vale and Doric wished to keep secret were blacked out). During the tribunal proceedings further information was released, and the links above contain the redacted document (Open Bundle 2) and the un-redacted information, plus some selected clauses from the Doric / Vale agreement, which were also released at the Tribunal.

Further information was released on 12th June. The decision of the Tribunal was released on the 25th June. The decision partially upheld the Vale’s appeal, but also requires them to release some additional information.