The Committee considered an application (23/02506/CT3) for the construction of a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the River Thames from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadows.

The application was before the committee as the decision of the Oxford City Planning Committee on 19 March 2024 to approve the application had been called-in by 16 councillors for the following reason:

‘The building of a new bridge adjacent to an existing bridge is not an efficient use of land or resources to deliver sustainable growth and development and it is therefore contrary to policies RE1 and RE2 in the Local Plan 2016-2036.’

The Planning Officer presented the report and provided the following update:

·        Since the publication of the report 17 additional letters of representation had been received from properties in St John Street, Buckingham Street, Western Road, Monmouth Road, Alexandra Road and Wytham Street; the University of Oxford; as well as representations where the specific addresses were not disclosed.

The objections had related to:

·        Lack of publicity of the application

·        The application would require the felling of trees

·        Gasworks bridge is located near by

·        Area under the railway bridge floods

·        No carbon footprint has been produced for the bridge

·        The money for the bridge could be used for other things such as affordable housing

·        It’s not clear if the bridge is required for Osney or is a standalone application or not

·        The tow path will be closed to facilitate the development depriving people of its use for a long period of time

·        The bridge will destroy the Nature Reserve

·        Money would benefit more people if it was spent on improving the existing cycling routes in the city

·        There is a lack of evidence/statistics/research on how many people would benefit from this bridge compared to the number of people who would be adversely affected by it

·        The application was not supported by an EIA

·        Will have a detrimental impact on biodiversity in the area

·        Give rise to noise pollution

·        Can something be added requiring the route from west Oxford, especially from the Mill St area, into the city centre, that runs past Gibbs Crescent and along the back of the ice rink to remain open if permission is granted

·        The sequential test wasn’t taken

·        The fields in trust can’t legally be developed

·        The gasworks bridge is a heritage asset

·        It will be built on a floodplain

·        BREEAM assessment wasn’t carried out on the bridge

The letters in support had related to:

·        The bridge contributes to the delivery of the objectives of the Local Plan and the West End and Osney Mead SPD

·        It will deliver safe pedestrian and cycle routes from the west of the city centre

·        It will contribute to economic benefits extending throughout the County and beyond

·        It will enhance connectivity and increase the sense of joint identity of Osney and Oxpens, helping to cement the West End Innovation District as a whole

·        It will fulfil the ecological potential of this area

·        It will enable landscaping, re-planting, encourage biodiversity of plants and animals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14

Councillors Upton and Chapman left the room for this item and did not participate in determining the application.

The Committee considered an application (23/02506/CT3) for construction of a pedestrian / cycle bridge across the River Thames from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadows at South Side, Oxpens Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation, provided updates, and highlighted the following:

·         Since publication of the report, three additional objections had been received.  Most of the issues raised had already been addressed in the committee report; however, in relation to those not included in the report the Planning Officer responded as set out below.

·         Officers had assessed the impact of the bridge on the local area and had found it to be acceptable.  The bridge had been designed to minimise its impact on the site and this was set out in the report.  Natural England had commented on the application and stated that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact.

·         The report set out that the other bridges located close to the application site had been looked at but had not been deemed to fulfil the requirements of the proposed bridge for various reasons, including needing extensive works to allow them to be suitable for use by cyclists.  

·         The proposed upgrades to the tow path would be designed to enable it to be suitable for use as a cycle route.  The County Council would be the lead authority in determining whether it would be designated as a main cycle way.

·         The issue of bottlenecks under the Railway Bridge had been considered in the committee report, which set out that research showed that cyclists adjusted their speed depending on the density of pedestrians.  The County Council had been consulted on the application and had raised no objection to the shared use of the path or bridge.

·         Officers had screened the development and did not consider it to be EIA development.

·         Officers agreed with the sequential and exception test set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. 

·         Officers considered the development as essential infrastructure.  This type of development was acceptable in flood zone 3b.  Notwithstanding this, the sequential and the exception test would still need to be met.

·         Policy SP1 and SP2 set out that a new cycle and pedestrian bridge over the river should be delivered in this location to link and enhance routes to the city centre.  The aspiration for a new bridge over a watercourse would in itself be required to cross an area of high risk to flooding.  The Local Plan and West End SPD set out that this area should be the location for the bridge. Officers therefore considered the sequential test had been met. 

·         Paragraph 170 of the NPPF set out that “To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that: a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70