An address to Cabinet was given from Michael Mowat, a representative from the Save Bertie Park Campaign group:

We challenge the legality of appropriation. The Council argues that appropriation of Bertie Park is legal under Section 122 of the 1972 Local Government Act, that the “land need not have fallen into disuse before it may be appropriated … (it) may be no longer required for its purpose as (a) recreation ground where the council intends to provide replacement facilities.” (Cabinet report) The Council holds that Bertie Park is "no longer required for its present purpose" as “all current functions of the site … will continue to be available following the development.” (Cabinet report) We will argue that this is manifestly not the case. Current functions of the site will not continue to be available following the development. Our current recreation ground is a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play. The Council concedes that our concerns that the proposed play and green areas are smaller and will accommodate fewer children are legitimate (EqIA). It asserts that it will re-provide a play area which caters to a range of age groups. Yet every architect’s drawing shows the new recreation ground to be a Local Area for Play. The campaign objects that the area for free play would be reduced by 80%. The Council states “this loss is to be offset by improved accessibility into and around Site B,” which is to become a nature trail, a very “different type of recreational space” (Appendix 1B). There are at least 2 problems with this: Given the close proximity of Kendall Copse, there is no demonstrable need for a nature trail. The Council asserts that site B will include “a safe place for young people to play and socialise” (EqIA), but have not engaged with community concerns, shared by Thames Valley Police, that poor surveillance on Site B makes it unsuitable for unaccompanied children (Cllr Hollingworth, S. Moran). The Council does not hold that there is no need for a free play area, but asserts that the new MUGA will fulfil this purpose (Appendix 1B). We hold this assertion to be Wednesbury unreasonable. The MUGA will be 24% smaller (Appendix 1B). The Council does not engage with our concern that this makes it unfit for its present purpose but argues that the decrease in size is “acceptable when the benefit to the locality of the additional housing to be built on the site is taken into account” (Cabinet report). The downgrading of facilities for young adults is especially concerning given that the new Redbridge Meadow development envisages no provision at all for this age group/demographic. We hold that the consultation was inadequate The Council maintains that they have followed the required statutory processes, including publishing notices in the Oxford Times and making plans available for inspection. They claim to have considered all received objections. (Cabinet report) The Council has used misleading language in their communication, implying that the recreation ground will be "regenerated" rather than partially built upon. The consultation process was also ineffective. Legitimate concerns were dismissed as matters for the planning stage. Officers instruct that “it is the Planning Authority who will need to have regard for the NPPF when it determines the planning application” (Cabinet report). If the land is to be considered no longer required for its current purpose because that purpose is met by replacement facilities, then the nature of those facilities is key. The Council has told itself that housing is needed at all costs and pre-determined the outcome. It is not genuinely engaging with residents’ concerns. (see Objections) We hold that there is a critical need for both social housing and recreation space. The council cites the Local Plan's identification of Bertie Place for residential development, and the contribution new housing would make to addressing homelessness. (Cabinet report) It acknowledges the need for a balance between housing and open spaces but argues that the critical need for affordable housing overrides the legal requirements of section 122 of the 1972 Local Government Act. This approach runs counter to government policy which states that “strong, vibrant and healthy communities”, depend not only “a sufficient number and range of homes,” but also “accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being.” (NPPF8) We recognize the need for affordable housing but question the Council’s prioritisation of housing over other considerations on this specific site, when it promotes developments elsewhere that prioritise job creation over housing. We advocate for exploring alternative solutions, and a more balanced approach to development that considers long-term community needs. Summary We have shown that the replacement facilities will not meet current (or future) needs, and that the land is therefore still required for the purpose for which it is currently held. (s122 1972 LGA). This conclusion is supported by extensive data collected by the campaign (Campaign Objection). The council argues that “while there is a difference between the facilities currently available and the new recreation facilities proposed as part of the development, this will not have a disproportionately negative impact on the protected characteristics” (Cabinet report). Officers instruct the cabinet to “strike a balance between different land uses in the light of wider community interests, taking a broad view of local needs” (cabinet report). This is not the legal test. We therefore ask you to reject the recommendation before you, and not to appropriate Bertie Park for this affordable housing scheme.

Following this address, the agenda was adjusted so that the Bertie Place item was taken forward directly after this address was given.