Not designed to meet the needs of current or future users:  

One of the 3 overarching objectives of the NPPF is that local authorities should aim to provide:

NPPF 8 (b): open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being;

The 2026 Planning statement says “There must be adequate re-provision of the current facilities to meet the needs of those who currently use the facilities (and the new residents). But …

• A footpath can’t fulfil the same needs as a playground: The provision of a 250m “nature trail” on site B is considered to be “the catalyst for the redevelopment of Bertie Place B, a currently overgrown site with limited accessibility into a useable public open space” (PS 7.1.23 page 27). This will involve retaining “existing woody vegetation” and following the “current maintenance program.” OX place state (without evidence) that this will “provide great benefit to the local community” (PS 7.1.25 page 28). But we already have access to Kendall Copse, a nature trail which is a 10-minute walk away from Bertie Park (Campaign objection map on page 21). Being in a flood zone, there is plenty of green space, but only one recreation ground. We have loads of personal stories. This is mine: I have looked after young lads, and had to negotiate screen time. I could always get them out to play on Bertie. I would never have been able to get them to go for a walk round a 250m footpath. The “nature trail” on site B was not “designed” to meet the needs of current or future users; it was just the only thing they could put there.
• The playground won’t cater for age groups currently using the park: The current playground has 14 items of equipment for all ages. The 2023 planning statement said “The LAP is designed as a garden-like space with simple play equipment to encourage active play, particularly for children below 5 years old.” In that same year Cllr Smith (Cabinet member for housing) said “The play area will be designed … with play equipment to encourage active play, particularly among children below 5 years.” (Response 7/23). Rob Jeffs (OX Place Community Engagement Manager) said the fact that the play garden is designed as an LAP “doesn’t exclude others from using the play equipment (either living further away or age 6+)” (email from Jeffs 9.6.23. I no longer have a copy). Dave Scholes, Affordable Housing Supply Corporate Lead, picked up on concerns “Following early comments in consultation, it wouldn’t just be for children aged up to 6, it could be for children 8+ … and we could have up to 8 or 9 items of play equipment, pending safety requirements” (Address to cabinet 9.8.23). But the 2026 Planning Statement still describes it as a Local Area for Play (LAP).
• We’ll sort it out later!
  • Sue Brown (Leader of OCC): “There’s always a bit of a danger with drawings, which are helpful in terms of trying to give people a sense of what something might look like, in people taking it as read that is exactly what it’s going to look like. It’s an important point to make that they are just indicative at this stage.” (cabinet 9.8.23).
  • Dave Scholes: “A relatively similar (play) area is proposed to be re-provided, and there’s been some consultation on that. I think there’s been comments made around the type of equipment that we’d be putting into that play area and I would just like to make the point that that’s quite indicative at this stage. It will be tested through the planning process” (cabinet 9.8.23)
  • Stuart Moran: “Building on the success (sic) of the earlier youth engagement event prior to submission, a further session is planned post-determination to help finalise plans for the play equipment with input from local young people.” (Correspondence with Stuart Moran email 3)

This is particularly concerning. Once they start building the houses, nothing can guarantee that the facilities will meet the needs of existing users if there simply isn’t enough space. OCC don’t have a recreation policy. Young people barely figure in the local plan. So we asked the planning department how they would decide whether the needs of users had been met, who said this would be the responsibility of the planning committee who will be told that:

“The delivery of affordable housing represents a significant material consideration and carries substantial weight in favour of the proposal in the planning balance” (Planning Statement 2026).