final decisions were made on the two contentious issues of proposals to
build on Headington car-park and on Ruskin Fields.
In fact, the first of these did not even get mentioned. It had, as all of
those on this forum know, been excluded by the officers from their
recommendations. It is worth reading their explanation for the exclusion:
> the potential loss of car parking and the effect on
> trade at shops in Headington was of considerable concern to the local
> community with a petition received of nearly 3,500 signatories against any
> development on this site. The site is surrounded by the Old Headington
> Conservation Area and for development to be viable it would most likely
> need
> to be built over a number of storeys which could adversely affect the
> conservation area. At this stage it is difficult to know whether this is
> deliverable
> and achievable and if it could retain sufficient car parking. For these
> reasons it
> should not be allocated.
>
As there was no debate on it, their recommendation stands, and so residents
can really now celebrate.
On Ruskin Fields, there were representations from both local residents
opposing the building on this part of Old Headington Conservation Area and
the Principal of Ruskin in favour of it. Again, it had been excluded by
officers and what Ruskin wanted was it for it to be re-inserted at this
late stage. There was, in fact, an amendment moved to that effect -- moved
by Stuart Craft (Independent Working Class Association, representing
Blackbird Leys) and David Williams, leader of the Greens (who represents
the area around Iffley Fields). Stuart's argument was on the basis of the
need for housing anywhere, the Green leader's was that these 'two soggy
fields' did not deserve saving. The arguments against, though, remain
strong: despite further reports from their agents, Ruskin had not shown a
viable access route which would not have done damage to Northway. And these
fields do sit in the Conservation Area and are an integral part of it. The
amendment was overwhelmingly defeated and so that too has been excluded
from development.
HOWEVER, Ruskin may choose at the next stage of the process to press for
their site to be included by the Inspector. It would be a costly option for
them -- and they have already spent over 150k on their proposals -- and it
is hard to see how they could overcome the natural constraints of the site.
But the story may not be over yet.
Of course, two sites -- one which would almost definitely have been for
student housing and one which would have had 50% affordable housing -- have
been excluded. There is a housing crisis in Oxford and we do need to build
more homes. It is pleasing that at the meeting the plan for an extension to
Barton got the green light, but that in itself won't be enough. Small
developments like the social housing element on Manor Ground are now coming
to fruitition (how long we have had to work to get that!); our challenge is
to find more developments, while protecting the communities that exist.