Oxford city council do not yet have planning permission to build on Bertie Park. They say Bertie could go to planning committee this Autumn at the earliest. Anna Railton says that the decision could go either way. If they finally give planning permission, we will appeal. We launch our fundraising for legal costs on the 26th April; starting with an Easter Egg hunt on Bertie Park, then music and games at St Lukes.
(If OCC eventually decide not to build on Bertie, all money raised will be spent on improvements to the park)
Bertie Park is still busy. OCC have nearly finished cleaning the surface, so we will have a new look soon. The photograph below shows spring on the park:
Last October, Oxford City council appropriated the land on Bertie Park. This means that IF OCC get planning permission, they can build on Bertie. But they DON’T actually have planning permission.
Please let us know if you could put a sign outside your house!
Lawyers advised us that it would be better to challenge planning permission than appropriation. We have no idea when Bertie Park will go to planning committee. We have been waiting for well over a year. Anna Railton says that it could go either way. But if Oxford City Council do decide to give planning permission, we WILL challenge it in court.
A small bridge joins Bertie Park Recreation Ground to land behind Wytham Street. Oxford City Council call this land the “Cold Harbour Nature Area”. Because it is not over-looked, it was in the past used for joy-riding. When Wytham Street residents complained about this, Oxford City Council installed bars on the entrance to the bridge so that bikes could no longer cross.
OCC now think that what our community really needs, more than a proper recreation ground, is better access to the “Cold Harbour Nature Area.” In order to do this, they want to fence off 70% of the Nature Area, and build a huge bridge to give better access to a 250m footpath/race track on the remaining 30%.
It is not clear whether they will also provide Wytham Street residents with ear-plugs.
If OCC build on Bertie Park Recreation Ground there’ll be no space for free play, nowhere for basketball or football and a much smaller play area. The compensation is a 250m path on land behind Wytham Street which Thames Valley Police say isn’t suitable for unaccompanied children. We already have a bridge. OCC want to build a bigger bridge to improve access.
We don’t have access to the most recent bridge designs.
Environment Agency say this “will impede flood flows and result in a loss of floodplain storage (which) … will increase the risk of flooding both onsite and elsewhere.” They also say that the abutments should be moved back as they would also be a major barrier for wildlife. Apparently there is evidence of increasing otter activity in our area!
Unless OCC build an even bigger bridge for us to reach a 250m “nature” path that we don’t need, the EA are unlikely to grant a Flood Risk Activity Permit. Without this OCC can’t build.
OCC have appropriated Bertie Park. The law says a “council may appropriate … land which … is no longer required for the purpose for which it is held immediately before the appropriation.” But case law says the council can take “a broad view of local needs.” OCC say that the need for social housing in our ward outweighs all of our concerns. After all, Bertie Park will be re-provided as “open space, in a slightly different place/form” and “2 new play areas in a slightly smaller form”.
What does this mean?
“Slightly different place/form”: All the space for free play will be re-provided as a 250m path on land that tvhe police say is unsuitable for unaccompanied children.
“Slightly smaller form”: The Multi Use Games Area will be too small for either basketball or football. The play area will be only 10% smaller, but will include disabled access to the play area and MUGA, a “bund embankment” to prevent flooding of the new properties, and a sensory planting garden.
OCC says families no longer served by Bertie Park can go to Hinksey Park or Fox Crescent.
ForOCC, this data shows the need for social housing in Hinksey Park Ward:
“The average house price to August 2020 is £401,360 where the England average is £304,430…. 47.4% of homes are owner-occupied against an England average of 64.4%. Of these 1.3% are shared ownership properties against the England average of 0.8%. 17.8% of households live in social rented homes almost in line with an England average of 17.7%.” Equalities Impact Assessment
It is outrageous to use this data as an excuse to remove our recreation ground. The council wants to build on the only recreation ground in a working class area of Oxford. But in North Oxford, the Oxford North development will see 480 homes and 3 new public parks.
Our lawyers have advised that it makes more sense to challenge planning permission than appropriation. The development is due to go to planning “some time in 2025.” Anna Railton says that “it really could go either way.” So watch this space.
Oxford City Council wants to “grow” Oxford. It will create way more jobs than homes. Surrounding authorities have to build homes for the people who work in Oxford. And so OCC has to build on every single site on the local plan.
new lab space planned for North Oxford.
Bertie Park is on the local plan. OCC say that social housing is more important than our recreation ground. But even working families need amenities. The government says that you can’t build on recreation grounds without replacing them with something equivalent or better.
OCC can’t do this. They fully accept that their new play area will be nowhere near equivalent. It won’t meet either current or future needs in this area.
The government says “Planning … decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places … so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.”
They want to offset the loss of our recreation ground by providing a nature trail on an area that Thames Valley Police say is unsafe for unaccompanied children, and where women also feel unsafe.
For OCC, the loss of Bertie Park is a small price to pay for getting other authorities to build homes for Oxford. They don’t care that people working in Oxford will have long and expensive commutes. Oxford should export its jobs, not its housing. People should be able to live where they work, and our kids should be able to play where they live.
This is why we are still fighting to keep our recreation ground.
Kaddy has asked for a judicial review of the decision to appropriate Bertie Park. Part of the challenge is that OCC have appropriated 80% of the park. They say that a new MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) on the 20% which is left will meet the current needs for somewhere to play football and basket ball AND for free play. We think this is not rational. We should know very soon if the council will defend its decision.
This is what we said to OCC on Monday 25th November:
This postage stamp is the same size as the new MUGA
Councillors were asked to decide whether to gamble rate payer money on winning the case. This was councillor Turner’s short reply:
Cllr Turner’s very short reply
For the very first time the council could not say:
When Labour was elected, there was much talk about house building. We asked Anneliese Dodds if the government wanted to build on recreation grounds. This week we had a reply from Angela Rayner (read here). She said her Ministry (MHCLG) currently has no plans to undertake a review of recreation grounds for housing, adding that recreation grounds are “important for the health and well-being of communities.”
Angela Rayner also said that there are no plans to alter government policy (NPPF 103) that states councils should not build on recreation land unless:
We will lose 93% of our space for free play. To “offset” this loss, OCC want to provide alternative recreational provision. Their alternative is improved access to an area of waste land, not visible from Bertie Park. This is what Cllr Hollingsworth said when some-one suggested putting a new MUGA on this waste land:
It’s not “over-looked enough for it to be a secure space for young teenagers. The police said that. Everyone said that. The local council said that. The whole lot. So we said (the MUGA) can’t go there. So, if there is going to be a recreation space there, it’s going to have to be a very different sort of recreational space, not one that’s encouraging children to go … ”
…. Which is the whole point of a recreation space, surely?
Save Bertie Park Oxford 