Judicial Review lodged against ‘concrete monstrosity’ bridge

DONATE HERE! 

26/8/24

An application for a judicial review of the Oxpens River Bridge (referred to by one Councillor as a 'concrete monstrosity') has been lodged this week by the Friends of Grandpont Nature Park. The bridge would link Grandpont Nature Park and Oxpens Meadow, despite the two sites already being linked by a well-used existing bridge less than two minutes walk away, and would destroy the only wooded section of the main path through the Nature Park. It would be built using over £10million of public money from a pot intended to facilitate housing. 

The planning application for the bridge was approved by the planning review committee by 5 votes to 4, but the group claim that permission was granted unlawfully after the committee were misled. They are urging the City Council not to sign the construction contract until the judicial review has been heard and the legality of the project clarified by the courts. 

The Judicial Review application is based on five grounds: 

1. The officers’ report presented to the planning review committee falsely claimed that the site for the bridge was ‘located in an Area of Change,’ and councillors were repeatedly told that a bridge "in this location" had been mandated by the Local Plan. Areas of change are areas designated for development within the Local Plan Policies Map. But Grandpont Nature Park, where the bridge is scheduled to land, and where the most destruction will occur, is in fact designated as ‘Green infrastructure’ scheduled for protection in the Local Plan, and not as an ‘Area of Change’ at all. This had a materially misleading impact on the committee members, helping to create a false narrative that the bridge’s landing in the Nature Park had been mandated by the Local Plan. 

2. Committee members were wrongly told by officers that they were not allowed to question the Council’s opinion that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required by the bridge, even if they believed it was wrong. If this were true, Councillors would be obliged to grant planning permission even where they knew or suspected that doing so would be unlawful. Clearly this is a nonsense. 

3. The Council’s opinion that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required was wrong. Wherever one development is “an integral part of a wider development,” that whole wider development must be ‘screened’ for EIA. In reality, the Oxpens River Bridge and its pathworks form part of the new connection from Osney Mead across the river specified by the Local Plan. Yet the most problematic part of that new connection - from Grandpont Nature Park to Osney Mead, which will require significant natural destruction and loss of large mature trees - was left out of the planning application and not considered in the screening decision. 

4. The Council failed to follow due process by a) allowing a Councillor who had approved key decisions on the bridge as a Cabinet member to then sit on the planning review committee judging the application and b) falsely telling committee members that they were not allowed to meet with local residents concerned about the development. 

5. The Council failed to inform the committee about an official report into refurbishing the existing bridge as an alternative to a new one. The report concluded that the refurb could be done for under half a million pounds (compared to over £10million for the new bridge), the only drawback being that it would “not deliver a new bridge structure in the visible landscape of the new Oxpens development.”

Much of this pertains to the murky situation in which the City Council, as both applicant and planning authority, is effectively in the position of ‘marking its own homework.’ We believe this has allowed the Council to get away with much that would have been disallowed were it to have arisen in an application submitted by an ordinary member of the public. 

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park are launching a ‘crowdjustice’ crowdfund campaign to raise the legal costs required to bring the case forward. 

The Council claim the bridge is “a key requirement for the future potential development of Osney Mead,” where Oxford University intends to build a new Innovation Quarter. 

Dan Glazebrook, from the Friends of Grandpont Nature Park, commented: 

“The reality is that there is no mandate whatsoever for the destruction of the Nature Park, not in the Local Plan, where it is listed as protected Green Infrastructure, nor anywhere else. Nor is there a mandate for misusing public funds intended to alleviate the housing crisis to instead subsidise a private commercial development of Oxford University which will worsen the housing crisis. The Council repeatedly misled their own members about all this and more to ensure their white elephant project scraped through planning committee. We urge everyone who cares about nature, about local democracy, and about public green space, to help us challenge the Council’s contempt for all three in Court. And we urge the Council not to recklessly sign a contract that will commit them to spending millions of pounds on a project which we believe will ultimately be declared illegal.” 

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park responds to more City Council misinformation

The leadership of Oxford City Council are clearly on the backfoot over their disastrous £10million white elephant Oxpens River Bridge project, and have responded to our speech to the full Council last Monday with a series of obfuscations and half-truths. What is noticeably absent from their excruciating defence of the bridge, however, is the claim – which has hitherto been presented as the whole raison d’etre for the bridge – that the bridge will facilitate Oxford University’s planned forthcoming private commercial development at Osney Mead. To get their hands on money from the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal, which is intended only for affordable housing, or for infrastructure that facilitates housing, the Council have always claimed that the “the Growth Deal allocation was made because the bridge is a key policy requirement to unlock the growth potential of the Osney Mead site.”

In a 180-degree about-turn, however, the latest statement makes no mention of Osney Mead, instead claiming that the “homes attributed to Growth Deal funded schemes in Oxford were done on an area rather than site-specific basis” and the project aims simply to “accommodate additional needs across the city arising from growth,” whatever that means.

The truth is the Council have got themselves in something of a pickle due to their speaking out of two sides of their mouth on this issue. To the funding body, they have insisted the bridge is necessary for the new homes that form a (tiny) part of the proposed Osney Mead development; whilst to the planning committee, they have insisted that the bridge is ‘standalone’ and not required by the Osney Mead development at all! This is presumably to avoid carrying out the Environmental Impact Assessment that is legally required whenever a development forms an integral part of a wider project.

Our other comments follow below:

Council claim: “The bridge will improve the choice of routes for people accessing the area.”

Our response: Yes the bridge will give people the choice of the excellent and wide existing cycle and foot bridge, which meets the current width standards for shared-use paths (at least 4 wide); or use the substandard 3.5m wide new bridge 30 seconds cycle away. Why people would need a ‘choice’ of bridges to the same location within a two minute walk of each other is never explained.

Council claim: “The scheme will deliver a net biodiversity gain.”

Our response: The small woodland which will be destroyed to make way for the bridge is one of the most biodiverse parts of the Grandpont nature reserve, and its construction will result in irreversible biodiversity loss on the site. The Council’s own guidelines specify that such losses must be avoided altogether wherever possible, and replaced on site where not. It states that biodiversity ‘offsetting’ schemes should only be used, in their own words, “as a last resort.” This is for the very good reason that such schemes are increasingly well understood to be a disingenuous con. Needless to say, this is the option the Council have gone for with their bridge. Even under this dubious scheme, however, they do not bother to meet the new legal requirements for 10% net biodiversity gain. This is because they submitted the application in the nick of time just before these new requirements were introduced, claiming they are therefore only legally required to meet the old 5% target. God forbid the Council do anything for the environment beyond the absolute legal minimum!

Council claim: “officers have followed the proper process.”

Our response: It is telling that the Council do not address a single one of our substantive allegations in their bland statement that assessments were made and “the scheme was reviewed before finalisation.” That facts are that:

-          The officers report falsely claimed that Grandpont Nature Park is an ‘Area of Change’ in the local plan, when their own policies map clearly shows it is not. This had the effect of convincing Councillors that the plan had a democratic mandate it did not actually have. 

-          Councillors who, as Cabinet members, had approved millions of pounds of spending on the new bridge, were allowed to vote on the planning committee, whilst councillors who considered meeting with local residents opposed the bridge were told they should consider recusing themselves if they did so.

-          The feasibility study on refurbishing the existing bridge, which concluded it was perfectly feasible for a fraction of the cost of the new bridge, was kept from the planning committee

-          Council officers falsely claimed that they did not require a Forestry Commission to clear fell the site without planning permission and had to be stopped by local residents for a week before the Forestry Commission came to the site to verify that they did.

-          These are just a few of the fifteen breaches of process we have identified in the granting of planning permission for the bridge.

Council claim: “The FRA [Flood Risk Assessment] has been reviewed by the Environment Agency, which is satisfied there is no added flood risk.”

Our response: There is an added flood risk from the bridge but the scheme proposes to mitigate this by creating additional floodwater storage capacity to compensate. We would suggest that if it is possible to add floodwater storage capacity at an area like Grandpont and Osney, which already sees homes frequently ruined by fooding, that capacity should be used to defend against these existing floods, rather than be used up to take the additional flooding caused by an unnecessary new bridge.

Council claim: Public consultation on the proposed development was undertaken before submission of the planning application

Our response: Not a single residents group in Grandpont have been consullted over the bridge, not even the residents' association of the retirement home on the edge of the Nature Park. Many of Grandpont's elderly residents depend on the Nature Park as the closest thing to countryside they can access. The one-day open public consultation meeting on the bridge in 2022, held in Oxford ice rink, was held on the hottest day on record, when the official government advice was that people should not leave their homes.  Many residents were given less than 24 hours notice of the meeting. Repeated requests for it to be held again were ignored.

County Council leader Liz Leffman to meet Friends of Grandpont Nature Park to discuss concerns over Oxpens River Bridge

9/7/24

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park addressed a meeting of the full County Council this morning to demand the Council pull their support for the wasteful, destructive and unnecessary Oxpens River Bridge. 

The bridge would link Oxpens Meadow and Grandpont Nature Park, two sites which are already linked by an existing bridge less than two minutes walk from the proposed site of the new one. The bridge would entail the destruction of the only wooded section of the main path through the Nature Park, and would destroy its tranquil character by transforming the current footpath into a 4.5metre cycle highway. It is set to cost over £10million of public money from a pot intended to facilitate affordable housing. 

Oxfordshire County Council have effectively commissioned Oxford City Council to build the bridge for them. They are the administrators of the Growth Deal fund which would finance the bridge, and, as the Highways Authority, would ‘adopt’ and maintain the bridge if it is built. 

The collaboration agreement for the bridge, signed by both Councils in 2020 states that the County may, “at its discretion,” withdraw their cooperation and require the funds to be repaid if the City Council has made ‘untrue or misleading representations’ or undertaken activities which could bring the OCC into disrepute.

The City Council have indeed made such ‘untrue representations.’ One example is the claim (made throughout the planning officers report - eg p.16) that Grandpont Nature Park is an ‘Area of Change’ in the local plan, when their own policies map clearly shows it is not. This claim suggested that the destruction of the Nature Park already had a democratic mandate when it most certainly did not. The committee ultimately passed the bridge by just one vote (5-4). 

At the end of his speech to the County, Dan Glazebrook from Friends of Grandpont Nature Park noted that not a single residents group in Grandpont have ever been consulted over the bridge and requested County Council leader Liz Leffman meet with the group, whose petition now has over 1500 supporters, to discuss their concerns. Councillor Leffman agreed and a meeting will be arranged in due course. 

Several County Councillors, including a number of Cabinet members, are opposed to the bridge and one County Councillor walked out of the meeting in protest against the 90-second time limit placed on members of the public presenting petitions at the meeting. 

Full speech to today’s County Council meeting 

Thank you Councillors. In the short time I have available, I just want to emphasise three things: 

1. Grandpont nature park is a beautiful and much-loved piece of countryside, essential to the health and wellbeing of thousands of local residents. Yet not a single residents’ group in Grandpont has been consulted about the bridge and the urbanisation of the reserve entailed by the destruction of the current footpath and its replacement by a 4.5m cycle highway.

2. We believe the use of over £10million of Growth Deal and Housing Infrastructure funds for the bridge to be tantamount to fraud. These funds are supposed to ‘unlock’ housing yet this bridge will do no such thing. 

3. The bridge is completely unnecessary as the two sites to be linked by the bridge, the nature park and Oxpens meadow, are already linked by an excellent bridge less than two minutes walk from the proposed site of the new one. 

• Councillors, this is just as much a County Council project as it is a City Council one. 

• You are paying for it - and, as the highways authority, you are going to ‘adopt’ it once it is built 

• You are essentially paying the City Council to build it FOR you 

The collaboration agreement between the two councils states that the County can pull out and demand return of the funds if the City has made untrue or misleading representations concerning the bridge. And the City Council has indeed been lying repeatedly to get this bridge passed. A full outline of how this is so will be emailed to you this afternoon. 

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park march to demand County Council withdraw support for Oxpens River Bridge 

18/6/24

Around 50 people marched from Grandpont Nature Park to County Hall today to demand the County Council pull out of the wasteful and destructive Oxpens River Bridge. The marchers gathered outside the Hall and held a ‘speak-out’ for members of the local community to voice their concerns over the plans (something neither Council has ever done!) before handing in their petition, which reached 1500 signatures today (1362 online and 140 on paper!). 

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park member Dan Glazebrook had been allotted three minutes to address the County Council Cabinet on the bridge earlier in the day (his speech is attached). 

Plans for the bridge involve the destruction of the only woodland on the main path through the Nature Park, which is used by an estimated 1000 people per day according to a recent survey conducted by the group. The group claims the bridge is unnecessary as the two sites to be linked by the new bridge - Grandpont Nature Park and Oxpens Meadow - are already linked by a well-used pedestrian and cycle bridge less than two minutes walk from the proposed site of the new one. 

The bridge is supposedly necessary to link Oxford University’s two planned new commercial developments at Oxpens and Osney Mead. But rather than landing at either of these sites, the bridge will take land from adjacent publicly-owned green spaces, Oxpens Meadow and Grandpont Nature park, despite these two sites already being linked by a well-used pedestrian and cycle bridge. 

The Council’s own report (hidden from the planning committee) into refurbishing the existing bridge concluded it would be perfectly viable, for 1/15th of the cost, and the only downside is that it would not provide a new structure visible from the Oxpens development! 

It is to be financed with over £10milllion of public money from funds that are supposed to facilitate affordable housing.  

Plans for the bridge were approved by the City Council’s planning committee by just one vote in April, but have not yet been approved by the County Council, who are also in charge of the £10million funding for the bridge. 

Comments from the community speak-out 

Bruce Hugman commented: “For me the fundamental thing is that this [Grandpont Nature Park] is a precious and beautiful resource for all of us. It is irrecoverable if they start felling trees and digging up woodland, and would be lost forever to Oxford and to generations in the future. This is a precious and unique resource and we must protect it.” 

Roo Glazebrook - “I don’t think the majority of people realise the huge destruction and damage that will be done to Grandpont Nature Park [if this bridge goes ahead]. They say ‘oh well it’s only 10% of the land’ - but it’s the most used part because it’s the footpath between Grandpont and Osney, and it’s part of many people’s daily walk. They’re not just building a bridge, they’re destroying all the paths, concreting all the edges, and digging up the hill because they don’t think the cyclists can go up a hill. The devastation would be appalling and I don’t think people realise this. And we need to tell them.” 

Jamie Walker - “This is money that could be used to unlock housing elsewhere. Using this money here is also a foregone opportunity to use it elsewhere to actually alleviate the housing crisis.” 

Lois Muddiman - “I just want to reiterate what a reckless and irresponsible use of public money this is at a time when there is so little public money.  And to spend £10million on a brand new bridge when it would cost less than £1million to refurbish and repurpose and improve the access to the existing bridge which is just moments away, is a really irresponsible use of public money.” 

Jabu Nala-Hartley - “On the way here today, I was just thinking about the difference between living and just existing. By us coming here to protect our nature, to protect our buildings, to protect our bridges, we are showing that we are not just existing but we are trying to live. But also we’re trying to amplify our voices so that they may not be extinguished when politicians are trying to take us for granted. I participated a lot in the campaign to save the greenbelt in Sandhills. It was enormously satisfying for people to have managed to stop that being driven through.  I came here to show my solidarity and to say to you that what you are doing is really important, especially for the next generations.”

Anne-Marie Sweeney - “I just wanted to say how really important it is to challenge the notion of ‘biodiversity gain’. There’s no such thing. The complexity of what nature is doing on site can’t just be replicated elsewhere. It’s a real poisoned chalice and you must combat it wherever possible because it’s total greenwashing.” 

Dot Clay - “We concentrate on the human needs and costs but I also think about the hedgehogs and the foxes and the other wildlife and some very endangered wildlife like the butterflies, the bees and the other insects that rely on those trees and natural flowers. I think it’s very important that we remember that there are other lives that will be affected by this - and putting that enormous cycle track in the way is going to block and disorientate and confuse all the wildlife that are already there. It’s going to split their habitat into smaller pockets and that’s going to have a big impact on generations of animals to come.” 

Dan Glazebrook - “If Oxford University want a bridge to link their new developments they should use their own land and their own money. If I want to build an extension, I can’t just build it in my neighbour’s garden. This is our land, this is public green land, and the research is very clear on the fundamental importance for mental health of access to green space. For many of the elderly residents here, this is the closest thing to countryside a lot of people can reach. And the whole rural, tranquil character of the Nature Park will be completely destroyed if it’s turned into this 4.5 metre cycle super-highway with pedal and post and all kinds of electric vehicles. It won’t feel like countryside anymore - and that will be just such a devastating loss to the community.” 

Footage 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/Td1kW8KihkxewmQ6/?mibextid=UalRPS 

Comments from petition signatories

Supporter comments · Save Grandpont Nature Park from unnecessary destruction · Change.org

The new pedestrian and cycle bridge is supposedly necessary to link two planned new commercial University developments at Oxpens and Osney Mead. But rather than landing at either of these sites, the bridge will take land from adjacent publicly-owned green spaces, Oxpens Meadow and Grandpont Nature Park, despite these two sites already being linked by a well-used pedestrian and cycle bridge. It is to be financed with over £10million of public money from two funds - the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal and the Housing Infrastructure Fund - that are supposed to facilitate affordable housing. 

The bridge was approved by the City Council’s planning review committee on 18th April after the original planning decision was ‘called-in’ by 17 councillors. It eventually passed by just one vote (5-4) after Chris Smowton, who is married to the Cabinet’s leading proponent of the bridge, was brought in at the last minute to replace Liberal Democrat committee member Roz Smith.

However, planning permission is conditional on an S106 agreement between the County and City Councils over the details of the scheme, and this agreement has not yet been signed off. An earlier collaboration agreement between County and City has already been broken and the County Council should now therefore withdraw its cooperation and pull funding for the bridge. 

The collaboration agreement between the two authorities, signed in 2020, states that the County Council may withdraw its support and require the funds to be repaid if the CIty Council “undertakes activities that are likely to bring the reputation or name of the OCC into disrepute” or “makes any representation … that is incorrect, incomplete, untrue or misleading.” 

The Labour City Council has consistently met both of these thresholds in relation to Oxpens River Bridge. The attempt to illegally fell the trees in the nature reserve in February, with neither planning permission nor a Forestry Commission licence, brought serious reputational damage to both the City Council and the whole bridge project. Furthermore, the City Council breached its legal duty to consult properly over the bridge, failing to contact a single local residents group in Grandpont, not even the elderly residents of Pegasus Grange just a few hundred metres from the nature reserve. And the City Council repeatedly made untrue statements to the planning committee, including falsely claiming that Grandpont Nature Park is in an ‘Area of Change’ in the local plan, in order to push councillors into approving the bridge on the false pretense that it had a pre-existing mandate. 

Clearly it would be supremely foolish for the County Council to now attach itself to such wanton vandalism and lawbreaking. 

We urge all those who cherish the nature reserve and support democracy to join us to demand that the County Council put a stop to this destructive and wasteful misuse of public money. 

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park 

Savegnp.org 

gnptrees@gmail.com 

Oxpens River Bridge consultation now open - 

please register your objections!

The City Council has already granted itself planning permission for its bridge BUT this must be approved by the County. They are obliged to conduct a six-week consultation where people can register objections before they do this. 

This is our last chance to use official channels to stop the bridge going ahead this side of a judicial review. Please write in with your objections!

Deadline: 14th June 2024 

NATIONALCASEWORK@dft.gov.uk

Quote the name of the scheme (Oxpens River Thames Bridge Scheme) on all correspondence.

More details here: Oxpens (River Thames) bridge consultation | Let's Talk Oxfordshire 

Stop Press! 

We have just found out that the river will be closed for at least some of the construction period (scheduled for one year, but these things generally overrun) 

This is the email we finally received yesterday from the City Council in response to our question: Will the river be closed during the construction of the bridge? 

"The short answer is yes, it is likely but only for limited periods of time. There is still work going on looking at the practicalities of craning the bridge sections and finishing the bridge. Currently looking at a range of measures including night working and partial closure but don't yet have a detailed proposal." 

Oxford City Council's 'Climate Awards:' hypocritical greenwashing! 

The environmental hypocrisy of the Labour City Council seems to know no bounds. 

The Oxpens River Bridge, on which they are planning to spend £10million of public money from a pot which is supposed to alleviate the housing crisis, will be an ecological disaster. 

The wooded glade which will be destroyed for the bridge is one of the most biodiverse parts of the Grandpont nature reserve, and its construction will result in irreversible biodiversity loss on the site. The Council’s own guidelines for developers specify that such losses must be avoided wherever possible, and should be replaced onsite if not. Biodiversity ‘offsetting’ schemes should only be used, in their own words, “as a last resort.” This is for the very good reason that such schemes are increasingly well understood to be a disingenuous con. Needless to say, this is the option the Council have gone for with their bridge. Even under this dubious scheme, however, they do not bother to meet the new legal requirements for 10% net biodiversity gain. This is because they submitted the application in the nick of time just before these new requirements were introduced early this year, claiming they are therefore only legally required to meet the old 5% target. God forbid the Council do anything for the environment beyond the absolute legal minimum! 

On top of that, the Council have failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment for the site, falsely claiming that the bridge ‘stands alone’ from the forthcoming University developments it is supposed to link, and is therefore too small to require one. Nor have they bothered to assess the carbon footprint of the construction, which uses two of the most carbon-heavy materials available, steel and concrete. Once again, their own policies require such an assessment - but they have avoided it by claiming the development falls under the 1000m2 threshold. Once again, this claim is very likely to be false once the surrounding footpaths and landscaping that are part of the planning application are taken into account. 

All this, whilst the bridge is being justified as part of the Council’s commitment to ‘reducing its carbon footprint’ by promoting cycle routes - despite the fact that they cannot point to a single car journey that will be saved by the bridge, which simply replicates an existing cycle route. 

Now we are told that the City Council will be hosting their own ‘climate awards.’ They should certainly award themselves first prize for greenwashing. 

PRESS RELEASE: FoI request reveals gasworks refurb IS viable 

- and at 1/15th of the cost of new bridge!

The Labour-led City Council continue to claim that a new £10million bridge between Grandpont Nature Park and Oxpens Meadow is essential, despite the fact that an existing bridge linking the two areas already exists less than two minute walk from the site of the proposed new one. When Councillors charged with assessing the plans have asked planning officers about the existing bridge, they have been repeatedly told that refurbishing the bridge is not viable, without a scrap of evidence being provided. 

Last week, however, we obtained a copy of a report commissioned by the County Council in 2016, which showed that the existing gasworks bridge COULD be brought up to modern standards to function as a main cycle route, and for a fraction of the cost. The recommended option would have cost just under £400,000 (£680,000 today, adjusted for inflation). We were given this report on the day of the planning review committee, past the 48-hour deadline for us to submit it to that committee, and were silenced by the chair when we tried to raise it on the day. 

The report looks at two options, both of which involve a boardwalk across Oxpens Meadow, as also proposed by the Oxpens River Bridge. The report proposes “recycled plastic lumber” which would “offer an extremely durable, strong and sustainable option and is an ideal material to use for areas subject to flooding.”  This is clearly far preferable, environmentally, than the Oxpens River Bridge, which proposes to use the most carbon-intensive materials available, steel and concrete. The report concludes that “the overall construction cost for Route B is £397,960.94. This is the designers’ preferred option, which offers increased resilience against flooding and [is] the most cost effective to the client.” 

Amongst the advantages of the proposed gasworks refurbishment noted in the report were that it “upgraded existing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians to make [the] route more appealing,” and that the “route through Oxpens meadow does not interfere with the flood storage volume proposed in the City Council’s mitigation scheme” - again, in sharp contrast to the deep piling required by the Oxpens River Bridge which would increase flood risk and require further mitigation measures. The single disadvantage of the refurbishment noted in the report was that it “does not deliver a new bridge structure in the visible landscape of the new Oxpens development.” This raises questions as to whether the real reason for the Oxpens River Bridge is, as we have always claimed, not to provide a new sustainable travel route, but to provide a ‘free gift,’ funded by public money and built on public woodland and meadows, to the University, to augment their forthcoming commercial developments in neighbouring Oxpens and Osney Mead. 

The existence of an alternative, more sustainable and cost effective option, puts the Council’s pursuit of the new bridge in breach of the law. The National Policy Planning Framework (paragraph 32), to which all planning applications must conform, notes that “significant adverse impacts….should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued.” It also puts it in breach of the laws regulating building on the flood plain, which likewise forbid development except where viable alternative options are not available. 

And the fact that this report was hidden from Councillors tasked with scrutinising proposals for the bridge, and given a false picture of its conclusions, invalidates the decisions made at those committees, which were taken on the basis of misleading information.  

The report also indicates that the City Council have been allowing the gasworks bridge to fall into disrepair, despite it being listed as an official heritage asset on the Council’s own register.  The report states that “The existing Gasworks Railway Bridge structure is the responsibility of Oxford City Council to inspect and maintain. The bridge deck is currently suffering from localised corrosion to both the transverse and longitudinal girders. The bridge requires a full Principal Inspection and Assessment to determine the extent and impact of the corrosion that has occurred.” Eight years on, it is unclear whether this assessment and follow-up repair works have yet been undertaken. 

Friends of Grandpont Nature Park, 23/4/24

Savegnp.org

Oxford City Council: Don't do anything foolish now!

Oxpens River Bridge was pushed through the planning review committee last week (by just one vote). Yet Oxford City Council have not undertaken the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) they are legally obliged to carry out in relation to this bridge. This is because Council planning officers wrongly characterised it as a stand-alone development and therefore too small to require an EIA. 

The Court of Appeal last year ruled that a development cannot be classified as stand-alone where it is “an integral part of a wider project.” The first words uttered in support of the bridge at the original planning committee which looked at the bridge was that “the bridge is integral to the wider plan for the West End of Oxford.” These are the words of the lead planner of the Oxpens development, Paul Comerford, and he is correct. The bridge has always been presented as integral to the wider Osney Mead and West End development, that is how it is presented in the local plan, and its funding was procured solely on that basis. 

The case will likely be coming before judicial review and it is clear that there is no way the Council can win. We urge the Council, therefore, not to commit reckless and irreversible damage to the Grandpont Nature Park woodland when they know it is only a matter of time before it is ruled unlawful. . 

Published in the Oxford Mail, 24/4/24

 Dear Members of the Planning Review Committee,

CoHSAT is a group of voluntary and campaigning organisations working across Oxfordshire to create attractive, accessible and people-friendly streets.

We support investment in improving active travel infrastructure, but several of our members are concerned that the proposed new pedestrian-cycle bridge across the Thames to Grandpont Nature park is poor value for money, about its directness and onward connections, and that the alternatives have not been fully assessed.

Its landing point on the north side is not convenient for onward travel, joining Thames street in a hostile place for cycling, and the immediate northward route via Norfolk Street is intimidating. If this approach is chosen, it needs safe connections to Frideswide Square and to New Road and/or Bonn Square.

In addition, we are concerned that the current plan for the bridge is too narrow, and does not meet current design standards, LTN 1/20. This may result in Active Travel England intervening in the scheme.

In terms of alternatives we think that a useful portfolio to assess would be:

·         Improving access to the adjacent Gasworks Bridge. This is wide, sturdy and well-used, landing in good locations on both sides. It is already used by Pedal & Post, by almost all of their cycles, including their trikes and EAV 4-wheeled ‘cab’ cycles (but not their articulated ‘pallet’ cycles). It requires the access paths resurfacing and widening, and in particular widening of the dropped kerb onto Friars Wharf, but this could be achieved at a small fraction of the bridge’s cost.

·         Improving the ramps on the Pipe Bridge to inclusive access standards. The Pipe Bridge has been out of operation for too long, but will soon return to providing a direct link from south Oxford to the centre.

·         A bridge near Osney Lock to better enable active travel to/from the west (e.g. linking South Street to Barrett Street) with a route on the north bank and/or an improved bridge to Osney Lane.

We hope that in your review, you will be able to consider whether the alternatives have been properly considered, and whether access for walking, wheeling and cycling between the new development, west Oxford and south Oxford – and the centre of Oxford, will be achieved.

Yours faithfully,
CoHSAT Members

Zuhura Plummer

Co-Chair, CoHSAT, Campaigns Director, Oxfordshire Liveable Streets

Robin Tucker

Co-Chair, CoHSAT, Chair, Oxfordshire Cycling Network

Sushila Dhall

Chair, Oxford Pedestrians Association

Alison Hill

Chair, Cyclox

Christine Hickman

Chair, Bicester Bicycle Users Group

Christine Collin

BikeSafe

Paul Bonsor

Banbury Active Travel Supporters

Council flouts procedure in order to push bridge through planning review! 

19/4/24

As expected, the planning review committee last night upheld the previous month’s decision to grant planning permission for the bridge. But it was a much closer margin (5-4) than we had expected. 

The decision itself was pretty much a foregone conclusion from the moment we heard that Liberal Democrat Councillor Roz Smith was going to be replaced by Chris Smowton, the husband of Anna Railton, the Labour Cabinet member who has been leading the public defence of the bridge. The four Labour councillors were never realistically going to oppose their own party’s prized vanity project either, but we did manage to win all four of the remaining councillors - Socialist Independent Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini, Independent Amar Latif, Green Lucy Pegg, and Lib Dem Stephen Goddard. Respect is due to these councillors for standing up to the planning officers’ attempts to drive them into submission. 

The governing minority Labour Council have clearly been rattled by the opposition to their foolish bridge. All usual procedure has been thrown out of the window in order to make sure our arguments were not heard. 

First, in the week before the committee meeting, Councillors were told by Council officers that they must reject our invite to show them round Grandpont Nature Park, and that anyone who took up our offer would be barred from attending the committee. Unsurprisingly, none of them came. It is, we believe, crazy that Councillors are not obligated to visit the sites they will be requested to destroy! 

Next, they were falsely told that any Councillor who supported the ‘call-in’ of the original planning decision should consider recusing themselves from the review committee - when hitherto calling in a decision has always been seen as a neutral position.  

Then to the meeting itself. In the ridiculously short six minutes which were alloted to opponents to put forward the case against the bridge, we mainly emphasised two things: the erroneous classification of the bridge as a ‘stand-alone’ project to circumvent their legal obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment; and the irrational classification of the bridge as “essential infrastructure” in order to circumvent the ban on building on floodzone 3b (land classified as the highest flood risk, and in which a large part of the new bridge will fall). 

On the first, we pointed to last year’s Court of Appeal ruling that a development cannot be considered ‘stand-alone’ where “the proposed development is an integral part of a wider project.” We pointed out that the bridge has always been presented as part of the wider West End and Osney Mead development, that is where it falls in the local plan, and indeed funding was procured for the bridge solely on the basis that it would “unlock” the Osney Mead development. Indeed, the very first words uttered in support of the planning application at the previous committee, by no less a figure than the lead planner for Oxpens were: “The bridge is integral to the wider plan for the West End of Oxford” - that is, the exact terminology used by the Court of Appeal to define a project that cannot lawfully be classified as stand-alone! 

On our second point, we emphasised that if their claim that the bridge constitutes “essential infrastructure” rests on it being a “flood evacuation route” for future residents of Osney Mead (a rationale for the bridge given by the County Council’s senior transport officer Robert Freshwater), then, again, it cannot be simultaneously be presented as a ‘stand-alone’ project that does not require an environmental impact assessment! But if it is NOT to be such a route, and is merely a stand-alone additional route for pedestrians and cyclists, to replicate the existing one, it can hardly be classified as ‘essential’ and therefore building it on floodzone 3b would be illegal. 

We had, in fact, identified twelve separate breaches of law and planning policies in the briefing document we produced for Councillors, but of course could not go through them all in the six minutes provided, let alone go into the enormous local opposition (nearly 1000 signatures on our petition now, as well as CohSAT, representing an alliance of cycling and walking groups, now coming out against the bridge). Instead, we hoped that we could explore these other issues during the question and answer session that normally follows. 

That was when the first hints of monkey business came! After supporters of the bridge gave their presentation (also six minutes, but this was of course on top of the opening 15-minute presentation in support of the bridge as well as the unlimited time given to planning officers to push the case for the bridge throughout the entire meeting), we were invited back to the committee table to sit alongside those supporters for the Q and A session. Normally, Councillors are then given an opportunity to ask questions to the supporters and opponents of the bridge, after which follows a separate session for discussion, during which planning officers can also be asked questions. Last night, however, in a breach from all precedent and procedural norm, Labour chair James Fry instructed Councillors they were not allowed to ask questions to objectors; instead, all questions were to be put solely to him, and he would decide who got to answer them! In the event, he directed every single one of the Councillors’ questions to planning officers supporting the bridge and we were not allowed to answer a single question. 

After this, we identified no less than seven other breaches of procedure, lies or wrongful advice given at the meeting to ensure the bridge was pushed through: 

1. ⁠Planning officers informed Councillors that the financial risk of the applicant launching a legal challenge to planning permission being refused IS a material consideration they should take into account when deciding how to vote (even though the applicant is in this case, the Council, who would therefore have to be appealing their own decision - a very unlikely, not to mention ridiculous, possibility), but the financial risk of objectors launching a legal challenge if it is granted should not be taken into consideration! 

2. ⁠Planning officers told Councillors that whether or not an application is proceeding illegally due to lack of an environmental impact assessment is essentially none of their business and should not be a consideration. 

3. ⁠Cllr Snowton failed to declare an interest in that his wife is the Cabinet’s leading public proponent of the scheme and has a huge stake in its continuation. 

4. ⁠Cllr Rowley failed to recuse himself despite having been a cabinet member supporting key decisions pushing forward the bridge. 

5. Planning officers ⁠failed to correct misinformation from the document supporting their application circulated to Councillors - namely a) repeatedly and falsely claiming that Grandpont Nature Park is in an officially-designated “Area of Change” in the local plan, when their own local plan policies map clearly shows that it is not, in order to falsely claim the bridge is mandated by the local plan; and b) similarly claiming that the local plan policies map mandates new cycle path construction through the Nature Park when it, again, very clearly does not. 

6. Councillors were incorrectly informed that the gasworks bridge is a “non-designated heritage asset” (whatever that is!) when in fact it is clearly registered as a heritage asset on the heritage assets register, meaning that a heritage assessment impact assessment (a HIA) should have been carried out (an HIA must be carried out whenever the “significance” of a heritage asset would be affected by a new development, which it clearly would be were the gasworks bridge to be replaced as the main pedestrian and cycle route into town by the new bridge). 

7. The planning lawyer misquoted Justice Lang's list of potentially relevant criteria in determining whether various constructions should be considered as a single project for the purposes of EIA screening as "whether the sites are owned by the same person" (which in this case they are not) when the actual quote reads "whether the sites are owned OR PROMOTED by the same person" (which in this case they are - Oxford City Council!) 

These kinds of things are only to be expected when the same body (the Labour Council) is both applicant and ‘neutral judge’ of an application. But in the end, given that the 5-4 result was the best we were ever going to get, these lies, failures and breaches were great gifts, giving us yet more ammunition to add to the ever-growing stockpile for the judicial review. Bring it on!  

Sign the petition! 

https://chng.it/vKhQcBbqwc

A much-loved section of the Grandpont Nature Park is under threat from a totally pointless £10million cycle and pedestrian bridge less than two minutes walk from an existing and perfectly functional one. We believe the bridge to be unwise, unnecessary, and undemocratic. Join us in opposing this gratuitous sacrifice of a much-loved community woodland for the sake of a costly white elephant for which there is neither need nor demand. 

What you can do 

1. Get involved in our campaign to save the nature park from this destructive and unnecessary bridge: email us at gnptrees@gmail.com 

2. Write to the Councillors on the planning review committee to express your opposition to the bridge: see https://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=147 for emails. 

3. Write to the local papers with your concerns: oxfordmail.letters@nqo.com; letters@oxfordtimes.co.uk

4. Write to the local MPs voicing your concerns: layla.moran.mp@parliament.uk; anneliese.dodds.mp@parliament.uk 

5. Write to the Council planning department to express your opposition (reference planning application 23/02506/CT3): planning@oxford.gov.uk 

Letter to the Oxford Times - planning permission 'called in'

Well done to the 13 councillors who ‘called in’ the planning committee’s decision to grant planning permission for the unnecessary vanity project known as Oxpens River Bridge. That the Council’s governing Labour Cabinet, at a time of crisis in our public services, would choose to spend over £10 million of public money destroying Grandpont Nature Park to replicate a perfectly functional existing bridge less than two minutes walk away speaks volumes about their priorities. The bulk of the money for the bridge - £8.8 million - is to come from the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal, whose purpose is to “ensure that people can live in affordable homes” and “meet the needs of people who cannot afford to buy on the open market.” Yet the development this bridge supposedly ‘unlocks’ (and whether it actually does so is highly contested) is not a new housing development, but a University Business and Science Park planned for Osney Mead. This development will exacerbate Oxford’s housing crisis by providing only a fraction (around 1/7th!) of the necessary housing for the 4000 people expected to work there. It will put further pressure on Oxford’s housing market and increase unaffordability and homelessness in the town. That this is all being funded by a grant intended to increase affordable housing is outrageous and a flagrant - if not fraudulent - abuse of the fund. 

Edited version printed in the Oxford Times, 28th March 2024 

Victory for residents as planning permission called in!

Local residents opposed to the destruction of a significant chunk of Grandpont Nature Park (GNP) won another victory last month when the decision to grant planning permission to the Oxpens River Bridge was ‘called in.’ This is a formal process triggered when at least a quarter of the city’s 48 Councillors request a review of a decision to grant planning permission. The Oxpens River Bridge will destroy the only copse on the 3-mile stretch of footpath between Iffley and Osney in order to connect (what’s left of) GNP to Oxpens Meadow, at a cost over £10 million of public money - despite being sited less than two minutes walk from the existing bridge. The Council’s justification for the bridge is that it is necessary for the planned new Science and Business Park at Osney Mead - in other words a huge public subsidy for a private commercial venture of the University. By increasing housing demand without significantly increasing supply, the Osney development will push up prices and make housing even more unaffordable. Yet, shockingly, the bridge is being built from funds intended to increase the stock of affordable housing (The Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal and the Housing Infrastructure Fund). 

Breaking the rules to push the bridge through 

Planning permission for the bridge was agreed by the Council’s planning committee in a 5-2 vote (with 1 abstention) on 19th March. However, there were a number of questions about the propriety of the decision-making process. Two councillors on the committee had recused themselves on the grounds that, as Cabinet members, they had already been party to previous decision-making around the bridge and therefore were not coming to the meeting ‘with an open mind.’ Yet two other members of the planning committee, including the chair, had also been Cabinet members when key decisions were being made about the bridge, and did not recuse themselves. Both these members then voted in favour of planning permission, and the chair, Mary Clarkson, illustrated her bias when she disallowed comments from the floor from opponents of the bridge, despite having just accepted comments from the floor from a supporter.

The decision to grant planning permission will now come before the Planning Review Committee, scheduled for 18th April. Whatever decision they make will supersede the decision made on 19th March. 

What we learnt at the planning committee 

• No Environmental Impact Assessment has been done for the new bridge, nor has any estimate been made of the likely carbon footprint of the development, despite the whole project being billed as part of the City’s “zero carbon” strategy.

• No costings have been done for improving the existing bridge, despite best practice in construction being to refit and improve rather than build anew. 

• The Council have no plans for the bottleneck (under the railway bridge and over Bulstake Stream) between the new bridge and the Osney Mead development it is supposed to connect to. This bottleneck, which regularly floods and cannot be raised due to the low railway bridge, makes a mockery of the whole project, which is supposed to ensure a ‘floodproof’ connection between Osney Mead and Oxpens Meadow. The Environment Agency has rejected flood walls due to the increased risk of flooding elsewhere and Council officers have admitted they have no solution to this issue. 

• The planning application made no reference to the impact on Grandpont Nature Park as an amenity for local people, as required by the Local Plan policy RE7. The existing character of the Park would be destroyed by the proposed bridge, which aims to transform what is currently a quiet piece of countryside on the edge of the city to a cycle super-highway which is explicitly framed as an extension of the city centre. And yet the only assessment of the Park’s value as an amenity in the application was to consider the views of the Park from neighbouring flats!