The Priory

This application is open to public comment so maybe those who feel strongly should do just that. Perhaps, in light of the disregard of the previous variation, the Council should be minded to refuse this application and withdraw the hotel's operating license until restoration of the Priory is complete. It's not like he hasn't had enough time to get this sorted by now.
 
OUFCGav said:
The council website doesn't let you link to docs.

Reference 18/00713/VAR Alternative Reference PP-06814217 Application Received Wed 14 Mar 2018 Application Validated Wed 14 Mar 2018 Address Hampton By Hilton Oxford Grenoble Road Oxford OX4 4XP Proposal Variation of condition 3 (Repairs to The Priory) of planning permission 15/02836/VAR (Variation of condition 3 (Repairs to The Priory) of planning permission 15/02836/VAR to allow an additional six months to undertake facade repairs after opening of new hotel) to allow an additional six months to undertake facade repairs after opening of new hotel. Status Registered Appeal Status Unknown Appeal Decision
Docs here > https://www.dropbox.com/s/w81wkmv8nd1o7u3/18_00713_VAR-APPLICATION_FORM-1961588.pdf?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9fwvg57vm7db16/18_00713_VAR-COVER_LETTER-1961688.pdf?dl=0

follows on from the previous case (15/02836/VAR) which was approved to give an extra 6 months in Sept 2015.
Click to expand...


So Oxford City Council roll over and allow the Teflon coated stadium landlord yet another six-month extension to undertake facade repairs, after granting him an additional 6 months way back in September 2015- which SHOULDVE meant the work was completed by March 2016....yet 2 years on NO work has been event started on the Priory, and still Councilors, elected by residents of Oxford City allow him to continue taking the P**s by granting yet another six months, two and a half years after allowing exactly the same time period. Toothless, inept and incompetant yep, that Oxford City Council planning department.

And what if the stadium landlord 'misses' the next deadline (September 2018), the Council Planning dept will do the same as before. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
 
Link to the covering letter.

The argument is that the condition (to repair the Priory facade) is in breach of article 204 (read it) of the National Planning Framework. An interesting additional pair of reasons why the requirement should be dropped seem to be that Kassam never said he'd do it (appears directly contradictory to what EH wrote to me) and they never applied for listed building consent to do up the Priory,

The letter's been issued because the council's "Planning Enforcement Team" is now dealing with the matter.
 
The covering letter states that the Minchery Farm buildings are outside the hotel development footprint and that our client "never agreed to the improvements", so essentially his argument is that the conditions are irrelevant to the hotel development and it is unreasonable to expect him to have to undertake any repairs on the back of this development.

It is only now that the planning enforcement team are on the case that these concerns have been raised - given that the conditions were set down in not only the original planning but also the initial six month extension granted in 2015, I would have thought that the developer should have raised objections at that point and by not doing so he has, de facto, accepted them, although the counter argument would be that as no enforcement attempt was made at an earlier time, that the developers understanding was correct and that no action was or is required.
 
I understand that as leaseholder of The Priory, the leaseholder (and landlord of the stadium) has a duty as leaseholder of the grade 2 listed building to ensure the Priory is fit for purpose

Oxford City Council as OWNERS of the Priory have a duty to ensure the leaseholder complies with ALL requirements of the lease

yet the leaseholder has been 'allowed' by the Owners to let the GRADE 2 LISTED building to fall into a serious state of disrepair,
with Oxford City Council planning enforcers (HA!), seemingly complicit in the Priory falling into disrepair.

Dereliction of duty on a massive scale by the head of Ox City Council Planning Enforcement, who is highly likely to be someone very much like the toothless Gummy, Mc Gummy, given the lack of any 'enforcement' for some 30 months since the first application to delay work by six months (Sept 2015)

Are there City Council elections in May? When prospective candidates come knocking asking for my Vote, if so, there will be a few awkward questions posed to them!
 
Oxymoron said:
The covering letter states that the Minchery Farm buildings are outside the hotel development footprint and that our client "never agreed to the improvements", so essentially his argument is that the conditions are irrelevant to the hotel development and it is unreasonable to expect him to have to undertake any repairs on the back of this development.

It is only now that the planning enforcement team are on the case that these concerns have been raised - given that the conditions were set down in not only the original planning but also the initial six month extension granted in 2015, I would have thought that the developer should have raised objections at that point and by not doing so he has, de facto, accepted them, although the counter argument would be that as no enforcement attempt was made at an earlier time, that the developers understanding was correct and that no action was or is required.
Click to expand...

There is also evidence (email from English Heritage to me) that suggests there was discussion of refurbishment of the entire building rather than just the facade about the time the building started, which is why the condition changed from before building starts to after the hotel opens. I have posted this on the old forum and sent them to an Oxford Mail reporter a while ago.

Article came there none.
 
Sarge said:
So Oxford City Council roll over and allow the Teflon coated stadium landlord yet another six-month extension to undertake facade repairs, after granting him an additional 6 months way back in September 2015- which SHOULDVE meant the work was completed by March 2016....yet 2 years on NO work has been event started on the Priory, and still Councilors, elected by residents of Oxford City allow him to continue taking the P**s by granting yet another six months, two and a half years after allowing exactly the same time period. Toothless, inept and incompetant yep, that Oxford City Council planning department.

And what if the stadium landlord 'misses' the next deadline (September 2018), the Council Planning dept will do the same as before. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Click to expand...
They haven't rolled over yet, application is still only registered not decided. But in all likelihood it will be as Firoka's people are cleverer than the council's. Given the cuts to council funding by the government it is hardly surprising.
 
Some prat has commented that the way to get Kassam out is to boycott all Oxford United Games
 
Eaststandboy said:
Kassam says he never agreed to improve the Priory:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/16101280.Firoz_Kassam__I_never_agreed_to_improve_The_Priory/
Click to expand...

It would be a tragic irony if OCC, the local authority of a city which focuses all of its marketing and decision making on maintaining the historical significance of Oxford which dates back many hundreds of years, is pushed over by a hotelier who is willing to destroy a building which has heritage stretching back to 1400c (or even 1100 if you trace back to the nunnery).

Even the Islamic State group are condemned by the UN for destroying buildings of cultural significance!

Will be interesting to see how much backbone (or lack of) is demonstrated by our local authority in their latest bungled interactions with Kassam. I shan’t be holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
Very clever and devious man is FK. He has successfully out maneuvered the council (and others) on several occasions previously, watch him do it again.
 
Surely if the condition is in there, and if Firoz is asking for it to be varied it must be in there, then he has agreed to it?
 
Regardless of what he agreed on the hotel, as the lease holder he is obliged to keep the Priory maintained. OCC have spectacularly failed at every point to hold FK to account. Again
 
Jerome'SAle said:
Surely if the condition is in there, and if Firoz is asking for it to be varied it must be in there, then he has agreed to it?
Click to expand...
As leaseholder of the grade2 listed priory, he Has, I believe, a duty to ensure the priory is fit for purpose. Which clearly, evidently is not the case.
Oxford city council as owners of the grade 2 listed priory have a duty to ensure any leaseholder keeps the priory in a condition that ensures it's fit for purpose. Evidently it most certainly isn't fit for purpose. Both the owner occ and leaseholder fk are failing to adhere to the requirements regarding the grade 2 listed building
 
Sarge said:
As leaseholder of the grade2 listed priory, he Has, I believe, a duty to ensure the priory is fit for purpose. Which clearly, evidently is not the case.
Oxford city council as owners of the grade 2 listed priory have a duty to ensure any leaseholder keeps the priory in a condition that ensures it's fit for purpose. Evidently it most certainly isn't fit for purpose. Both the owner occ and leaseholder fk are failing to adhere to the requirements regarding the grade 2 listed building
Click to expand...

According to the historic england website "There is no statutory obligation upon the owner of a listed building to keep their property in a good state of repair, although it is usually in their interest to do so. However, local authorities can take action to secure the repair of a listed building when concerned about its continued conservation."
It also says "There are powers the Council can use to require owners to carry out urgent repairs to safeguard the future of a building whilst preventing further damage. In certain cases the authority can apply to ‘Compulsory Purchase’ a listed building."


But all of the rules apply to the owner of the building which of course is the council. The council entering into a lease contract with Firoka does not absolve them from responsibility. What they should have is a water-tight lease contract with Firoka stating exactly what needs to be done and when, of course whether that exists or not (being watertight rather than existing at all) is another matter....that then comes to company law and one set of lawyers fighting it out against another, and almost certainly the council losing (at a guess). I would bet that Firoka have a contract that they are happy with the grey areas of that give them enough wriggle room, just like with the planning application that 'cleverly' doesn't include the priory building in the site boundaries so that they can claim it is 'unreasonable' to have maintenance of it as a condition of planning consent. The council just come across in all this as incredibly naive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sarge
The Priory, Firoka, The City Council & (at last) Oxford Times
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
33K
uptheus
U
Back
Top Bottom