Lack of consultation on Oatlands Recreation Ground CPO

Statement Section 19 on behalf of Ferry Hinksey Trust and Oxford Flood and Environment Group

Witness – Patricia Murphy

Madam Inspector, thank you for allowing us to represent the public in this forum.

We speak on behalf of 5,200 signatories to a petition and 93% of over 200 objections in the last planning application.

We have also raised £85,000 through crowd funding to pay for legal fees. With nearly 150 members of the public of West Oxford contributing. Some are digging into their savings and their housekeeping. Some are local business people.

I wish to emphasise that I am an ordinary member of the public. I am not represented by a legal representative today because we have to use our money wisely. We likewise contribute as tax payers to the eminent legal team fielded by the EA for the 6 weeks duration and beyond. But we still feel these matters need to be raised and have been asked to do so by members of the public.

To begin I will outline our principal objections to the Section 19,

Secondly, I will deal with each of the land parcels in turn – Oatlands Recreation Ground, Deans Ham in Grandpont. Then Kennington Copse and Kennington Ponds as the locals call it.

Finally, I will conclude with the main points of our argument.

• First as this affects public land, we feel there has been a glaring lack of consultation and engagement with the public. As outlined by Professor Riki Therivel who is an expert in this area, the process adopted by Mr Thorne, the Land Agent for the Environment Agency, is inconsistent and arbitrary. We argue that key constituencies have not been engaged and that this raises serious concerns about the process. The time period for consultation as outlined in Mr Thorne’s rebuttal page 6, paragraph 4. 11 was very short 21^st Nov – 12^th Dec 2023 – less than 3 weeks before Christmas with notices in small-circulation local newspapers.
• Secondly, the land parcels offered in return are supposed to be equally advantageous to people. We would dispute this is the case on several grounds.

1. Starting with the Oatlands Recreation Ground.

• We don’t dispute the need for a bund. But questions need to be asked about its positioning and public engagement.
  

1. Mr Thorne’s submission acknowledges that this is a well-used piece of land. But he still vastly underestimates its value to the community. This area of the park is a much-loved community asset. It is used for community gatherings, social events, post school get-togethers. There are exercise classes here several times a week in all weathers. You couldn’t have chosen a more utilised strip of land if you tried. It is also a favourite for sports days and school events. So, the stakes are very high.
2. Yet there has been almost no engagement of the public or the key users of this area. Mr Thorne confirmed that he has conducted no surveys of Oatlands Recreation Ground because it is so self evidently used. But this has over-looked residents and the granularity of how people use the space, therefore posing problems for how to compensate for its loss.

The people who will have a bund right outside their house and at the bottom of their road are in a state of shock and stress. Hillview Rd and Alexandra Rd residents that live right beside Oatlands Recreation Ground are beset by upset and confusion. The diagrams that are publicly available depict the bund right up against a property and potentially involving disruptive work. I quote an email from a Hillview Rd resident, writing on behalf of the community:

"We and all the community round here use the space that will be taken by the bund heavily for recreation and community. Hill View Road had a street party exactly where the bund will be and it is used every day by children, especially after school.

We absolutely agree the bund should go next to the road rather than butting up against properties.

It is obviously not the same to have a space far away from the houses for recreation. People bring food and drinks into the space in the summer; they can use their own loos, they can watch their children and leave them quite young knowing they are close by; they have a beautiful view that hugely enhances the amenity of the area.

We find it extremely stressful that we have been left to “find out” about this land grab via rumour and hearsay, and have no information on what is planned even though the plans show something being built against a house and right up to our road. This has a distinct whiff of post office about it. Proper David and goliath stuff. I feel like they are literally planning to bulldoze us.

The road has water on it at one spot only and roughly 4 days in every decade. Why can’t they just raise the road level at the part where it floods?

If they had any consultation we were unaware, and can assure you if they’d said they were going to build where it looks like they are going to build, we would have attended any meeting/asked questions etc. We do not feel that we have had any opportunity at all to find out what’s planned. "

The bund is being paid for by the University and Oxford, presumably to facilitate Osney Mead and its development. The land is being transferred by the council. So why isn’t the bund alongside the road East of the treeline?

There is a potential for a re-design that doesn’t make the community bear the cost.

3. There is a car park which the bund will go around and roadside parking. Has this been considered for a bund? It makes far more sense. Given that the protection is for property and commercial interests, then they should bear the cost and not deprive the people of the community of an asset when an alternative exists.
4. The exchange land at the start of the Electric Road is utterly unsuitable. The Oatlands ground is literally metres from the school. The Electric Rd site is over one hundred metres away across an unsafe road with just a zebra crossing near a roundabout. It is quite a treacherous junction. It is not suitable for children to cross. Mr Thorne claims the land just needs to be mown. This is preposterous. The land has two pylons, several overhead cables, both underground and overground cables. There are signs to beware of the electrical installations. How is this a safe space for children or sports day? Can divots be put into the ground for goals? Is it healthy?

We know accessibility, distance and being close to a residential area are important factors in case law.

If I could refer you to Mr Thorne’s rebuttal page 10 where a case is cited to show better land can be offered. This is paragraph 5.24 section 1

The Inspector’s report in relation to the Greater London Authority (Regeneration of Southall Gasworks) Compulsory Purchase Order 20144 (see Appendix 3) confirms that the Exchange Land being provided is larger than the open space land being acquired and "significantly better in terms of accessibility, distance to pedestrian attractors and residential catchment" (paragraphs 68 – 76).

They cite accessibility and distance for pedestrians in a residential catchment as decisive features. So, this shows these are relevant factors. The proposed land is more distant, not attractive to residents and is beside an industrial estate and not a residential area. Furthermore, as outlined by local residents, it is distant from the school, fairly isolated and not overlooked. Parents would not feel secure allowing their children to go there unaccompanied. People will not be tempted to linger there. We also know that this is a relevant factor in case law. This is shown on page 10 and 11 of Mr Thorne’s rebuttal.

1. iii) The Inspector’s report in relation to the Woking Borough Council (Sheerwater Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order 20206 (see Appendix 5) mentions that the proposed Exchange Land "compares favourably to the existing open space, which is limited in size, of poor quality, and often not overlooked by properties, and therefore unsafe“ (paragraph 29).”

So this indicates that not being overlooked by properties would make Exchange land considered unsafe. The Electric Road site is beside an industrial estate and not overlooked at all. While it is great for dog walkers, runners and walkers, and people who enjoy nature it is unlikely to acquire the qualities of a public park.

5. This land has also been identified as having the most potential for a nature recovery site. This is identified by Catriona Bass in her report on Meadows and also by Dr Tim King the foremost authority on meadow grassland.

"It is not a ‘blank canvas’ from which to create a new nature reserve. On an hour-long walk through some of these meadows, on 29 April 2023, a number of rare MG4 species were photographed. Among numerous bird species heard and seen, two pairs of rare grasshopper warblers were recorded as well as pairs of sedge and reed warblers.

Having been engaged in landscape-scale re-creation and restoration of floodplain meadows since 2018, through the Thames Valley Wildflower Meadow Restoration Project, we have not seen another area with greater potential for the creation of a nature recovery network for floodplain meadows and their dependent wildlife." (quoted on page 14 of Patricia Murphy proof of evidence, paragraph 2)

6. This used to be the King’s Meadow and has fragments of MG4 grassland. It is almost certainly of higher biodiversity value than in the Environment Agencies assessments. The ‘lost’ report t(hat the EA admitted had been forgotten) from 2019 on Invertebrates by Richard Wilson identified this as an important wildlife corridor for connectivity. This is appended in Dominic Woodfield’s Proof of Evidence, who is the eminent ecologist for the OPT.

B Turning now to Eastwych Farm which is offered as exchange land for the loss of a strip of land in Grandpont Nature Park, the integrity of the site is being lost and replaced by a random bit of land that can only be accessed across the main Abingdon Road. There is no value to people in this replacement.

We know from our own survey that this site in Grandpont Nature Park is used for perambulation. The incursion of the facility will cause further fragmentation.

Kendall Copse and Kennington Pools.

1.Here again we have the egregious absence of consultation. In their rebuttal in para 5.17, the EA even demonstrates this on page 9 of their rebuttal.

14. 17 “The EA’s response to ecological and consultation objections are addressed in sections 3 and 4 above. In terms of specific points raised in relation to the loss of Kendall Copse and proposed mitigation, the EA met with the Secretary of the Friends of Kendall Copse in October 2016 and at an environmental stakeholder meeting in March 2017. The EA also held meetings with Kennington Parish Council in 2017 and twice in 2020 where impacts on Kendall Copse were also discussed. Exchange Land was not specifically discussed and no particular concerns about the loss of amenity were raised. The EA did however ask if they had any environmental projects that would benefit from input or contributions from the EA but none were put forward.”

There was a meeting in 2020 with the parish council but Exchange land wasn’t specifically discussed. As is so often in this process, the onus was put on the consultee. There was some vague reference to environmental projects. But it was laid out what the consequences would be. It is clear that the parish council, which represents 4,000 did not consider this as consultation. It’s difficult to see how anyone could infer they were expected to put forward projects for compensation from this de-contextualised request.

In evidence of this I would like to cite the letter from the Kenningon Parish council who only found out about the process through us last Thursday, Jan 11^th 2024. The Parish council represents 4,000 people.1

"I do apologise for not contacting you earlier regarding the Section 19 inquiry which relates to Kendall Copse and Kennington Ponds, but as Cllr. Cuddy has explained, Kennington Parish Council was only made aware of this at its meeting last Thursday evening.

It is appreciated that this is a very late comment, but Kennington Parish Councillors would like to make it clear that, as both Kennington Ponds and Kendall Copse are being taken from the village, that the council expects exchange land be provided for both Kennington Ponds and Kendall Copse. As these designated open space parcels of land will be swallowed up as part of the proposed Flood Alleviation Scheme, residents expect a similar amount of land in exchange, however infrequently parts are visited by villagers.

The council would like to make representation to counter any suggestions that retaining public green space is not of interest to residents. Late as this is, could you confirm that this is the most appropriate place/time for Kennington Parish Council to challenge such suggestions, or should the council wait for Oxford University to make their objection, and then object to the objection? Please could you advise.

The residents of Kennington, some years ago, spent a great deal of time and effort in making Kendall Copse (both sides of the Kennington Road) into a more pleasant and natural landscape, with trees of all species being planted by residents and have been cared for by a group within the village ever since. It was a great shame when it was understood that this was to be taken from the village. Residents regularly visited Kendall Copse.

It is true that Kennington Ponds are rarely used, but it is mainly due to a lack of maintenance rather than a lack of desire.

If there is any way possible to add the council’s wishes, at such a late stage, it would be very much appreciated.

Best wishes

Anne Feather

Clerk to Kennington Parish Council

We also have further evidence of the importance of both sites from members of the public who have responded to our questionnaires.

Here are some comments from a local resident. But we have had feedback from 4 other members of the public also who primarily use it for nature watching and walking. These include a well-known nature writer who visits to inspire his writing and poetry.

I quote here from a local resident.

"We visit Kennington ponds for walks and wildlife spotting, either alone or with our children. We have been coming here since we first discovered the area, not long after we moved to Kennington in 2007. On one visit we saw hundreds of tiny froglets making their first foray from the water. We see moorhens there, swans nesting, ducks, even a turtle and a kingfisher! This is also a popular spot for fishing (although none of us are fishers), and children play there.
Swapping' two areas of publicly-available open space for one of those same two is obviously not a fair swap.
Quite obviously they are also very different in character, so this would not be a good trade unless new pools were created in the proposed ‘new’ plot, which would of course then change the nature of that area and reduce the amount of open space available. Site 9 also looks, from the map, to be smaller than Kennington Pools.
Second, Kendall copse. Yes, I walk here too, alone or with my children. We go there just for a bit of fresh air and to see what wildlife we might spot. We see plenty of wildflowers growing there, including orchids, and various birds (the only place in Kennington so far that I’ve seen a whitethroat) and we participate in the 'Big Butterfly
Count' here. Kendall copse was created as a community woodland in 2008, just a few months after we first moved to Kennington, so we have watched it grow and develop from the very start. Some of the trees
were planted in memory of departed loved ones and as such are not replaceable.
Some of the designated area for replacement is on a steep slope right beside the ring road, not exactly suitable for a relaxing walk and more of a difficult scramble through litter-strewn brambles while assaulted by the traffic noise from the road immediately above. Again, not a fair ‘swap’ by any stretch of the imagination."

3.As the channel will be of a different character in this area with steeper banks, this is a fundamental and irreversible change of landscape and net loss to the public domain and the green entrance and setting to Kennington.

Contrary to the university’s assertion, this site does have a value to the community. But the reality is they haven’t been properly consulted. With the lack of community engagement, we propose that this nullifies any proposals here and suggests the EA needs to go back to the drawing board.

4.Also as we’ve heard from Riki Therivel, with the channel fragmenting the area into 7-8 bitty plots, how can the vestiges be of use for the public?

The eastern part will be a ditch and unavailable to the public. The areas remaining are closer to the road and not suitable for dog walking or enjoying the environment. Dogs will not be able to be let off the lead. How are we meant to cross from one of these islands to the other? This is an unfeasible proposal that lacks what the geologists call “ground truthing”.

5.Also, have the Traveller community alongside the other plot of land proposed on the opposite side of the road was consulted.? They may present challenges, but they are a community with human rights. When we visited with the inspector the proposed compensation land was occupied by ponies. Perhaps there needs to be more consultation here rather than assertions.

6.We have also been given no indication of the future stewardship of any of this land.

In conclusion: Due to the flaws, these Exchange land proposals are not fit for purpose, reduce the amount of land and biodiversity available for people as a public amenity, are not equally advantageous on any measure and should be rejected on that basis. These are not like-for-like swaps and do not amount to compensation. Ecology and biodiversity is integral to the enjoyment of the amenity and this will be severely reduced.

There is a worrying lack of consultation and meaningful public engagement. Recent scandals have put the spotlight on the need for openness and transparency from institutions. Section 19 is supposed to be about people. But at every turn it’s the lowest common denominator and box ticking and in the case of Oatlands and Kennington Copse and Kennington Ponds, no meaningful engagement at all. We reject the statement on page 4 of Mr Thorne’s rebuttal and conclude there are few if any advantages offered nor are they sufficient to provide an overall equality of advantage.

1 Note: Evidence from and about Kennington was not admitted by the Inspector as too late.