Bertie development could make flooding worse

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.

The EA object to the development. This article was in the Oxford Mail: Environment Agency slams plans for more than 30 new Oxford homes. They say “the design of the bridge is entirely inappropriate for the site and wider landscape” because the abutments are within the river bank, and the supporting structures and ramps are to be constructed from gabion baskets:

gabion baskets used to construct a wall

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.

Working class communities don’t need recreation grounds …

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.

For OCC, 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 don’t care

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.

Bertie Park’s MUGA as a postage stamp

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:

What Angela Rayner thinks about recreation grounds like Bertie

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?

Bertie Park at Cabinet, and why we’re fighting on …

It’s taken a while to upload this as the council didn’t record the first part. We had to re-record. This is Michael giving the campaign speech:

Cllr Linda Smith outlined the council’s position. She recommended that the cabinet note our objections, but appropriate the park:

Cllr Smith explains the appropriation

Councillor Hollingsworth said it would be unreasonable not to appropriate the park.

FACT CHECK: To appropriate Bertie Park, OCC have to show that the new Multi Use Games Area will meet the need for free play. This is barking mad. The new MUGA is way smaller than our green space. And if the MUGA is being used for football, there’ll be no space for free play at all. This is what we said was Wednesbury unreasonable.

Cabinet voted to appropriate the park, then members of the public were asked to leave:

Fact check: If you want to appropriate land you have to meet the requirements of the 1972 Local Government Act s122. This says the land should be “no longer required for its present purpose.” Cabinet did not even mention this.

And so, BOTH the campaign AND the council will have to go to the unnecessary expense of judicial review, partly because OCC did not allow for proper exchange and dialogue, partly because they want to build on Bertie Park no matter what the law says. If the council’s plans really are legal, if they really fit with government policy, why doesn’t the council engage with what we say? Why don’t they try to convince us that we are wrong?

What will OCC say on the 16th?

OCC cabinet will meet on 16th October to decide whether to appropriate Bertie Park for building. The 1972 Local Government act says that Councils can only appropriate a park if it isn’t needed. So OCC has to show that their new recreation facilities will do everything that Bertie park does. Not easy!

The Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) will be 24% smaller. We think it may be the wrong shape for 5-a-side football. Downgrading facilities for young adults is worrying, especially as there will be 300 new homes on Redbridge Meadow and no facilities for young adults.

Bertie Park has a large area of grass for free play. This will be replaced by a nature trail. A nature trail is not for free play. Police say the nature trail will be unsafe for unaccompanied children. So, where do the council say that the kids can run around? The new MUGA.

That is why, in last week’s Oxford Mail article on Bertie Park, OCC said: “In making the decision cabinet should strike a balance between different land uses in the light of wider community interests, taking a broad view of local needs.”

But that’s not what the 1972 Local Government Act says. The cabinet meeting that will decide the future of Bertie Park will start at 6.00 p.m. on 16th October. Meet outside St Aldates at 5.45 to support the campaign. Here is the speech that we have sent to OCC for approval.

There is a huge amount of paperwork for the meeting. Email: Savebertie@gmail.com for links or further information.

16th October

On 16th October OCC’s cabinet will decide whether to appropriate Bertie Park for building. Even if a local authority already owns a recreation ground, they must appropriate it first before they can build on it. If they can’t appropriate, they can’t build!

“Appropriation” is not a paper exercise, but has real consequences for our community. It is the difference between having a recreation ground, and not having a recreation ground. To appropriate Bertie Park, OCC will have to meet conditions set out by section 122 of the 1972 local government Act. They will have to:

  • Show that Bertie Park is no longer needed
  • “Properly and conscientiously” consider the community’s responses to their consultation

Oxford City Council consulted the community last year. 150 members of the Bertie Park campaign sent in this response.

Meet outside the Town Hall at 5.45 to support the campaign. Oxford City Council’s cabinet meeting will start at 6.00 pm.

The Bertie Park Mystery

Oxford City Council say: “At present, the expectation is” that OCC Cabinet will decide the future of Bertie Park on 16th October (The big decision). But they are not sure.

10 months ago, people were told that there were “legal issues”. 5 Months ago we asked again when Bertie would go to cabinet. Cllr Upton, Cabinet member for Planning, said “it still needs a couple of things to be signed off.

Now she says:

For a big project like this there are a lot of moving parts, and some are outside the control of the city council. We genuinely do not know when all of the reports necessary will be ready.

You are as well-informed as I am about the likely date of Bertie Park coming to either Cabinet or Planning Committee.

Looks like we are ALL in the dark!

Are they are keeping us in the dark so we can’t let people know what’s happening? … so fewer people turn up to witness this important decision? OCC cabinet may or may not decide the future of Bertie Park on October 16th. Watch this space: