Oxford City Council’s use of language

Oxford City Council chooses its language very carefully when defending its decision to build on Bertie Park Recreation ground.

The council’s 2019 draft proposal suggested that the playground on Bertie Park should become “smaller but more modern”. The council then promised to provide an “adequately sized” play area before conceding that they are legally obliged to provide a play area and multi-use games area (MUGA) which are “equal to or better than” the existing facilities.

“Multi Use Games Area” is also an interesting term. The current local plan clearly states that the recreation ground including the MUGA should be re-provided on the wasteland behind Wytham Street. The current MUGA is a steel fenced area with built-in goal posts and basketball nets. The council intends to replace this with a “kick-about area with goal nets”. Calling it a MUGA doesn’t mean that it really is a MUGA.

In the Oxford Mail article on 20^th March (First of 1,100 new council houses to tackle Oxford housing crisis built) Bertie Park was among 3 sites that Alex Hollingsworth appeared to call “scraps of land”. A recent Labour newsletter called nearby playground in Fox Crescent a “small but highly valued play area” whereas Bertie Park was labelled a “brownfield site”. According to the council’s own definition, “an open space which is used as an amenity, and where the remains of previous use have blended into the landscape”, cannot be considered as Brownfield Land. Is there a reason for the council’s careful choice of words?

In the local Plan, Bertie Park is referred to as a “recreation ground”. The city council would like to re-brand 93% of Bertie as “open green space”, and re-provide ALL of this on the wasteland behind Wytham Street. The problem is that the wasteland is not overlooked; the police do not consider it safe, so Bertie Park’s open green space is now destined to become a family nature trail. Although the nature trail will be green, it will neither be open space, nor suitable for free play.

Councillors and council officers like to tell us that Bertie Park has been in local plans since 2001, but the local plan, which was agreed by the council, says that planning permission for building on Bertie will only be granted if the recreation ground is re-provided. There are many reasons why it is not possible to do this. So, on the one hand, they argue that the development should go ahead because it has been in local plans since 2001, but on the other hand they explain that it is not necessary to follow the local plan.

All this makes my head spin.