Public addresses relating to matters of business for this agenda, up to five minutes is available for each public address.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address must be received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by 5.00 pm on Wednesday, 30 July 2025.

The Committee heard one public address from Mr. Glazebrook from Friends of Grandpont Nature Park. 

The Chair invited Mr. Glazebrook to address the Committee as follows: 

Almost 2000 people, the vast majority of them local residents, have now signed the petition against the Oxpens River Bridge and its connecting paths. There are many reasons people are up in arms - the ecological destruction involved, the lack of democratic consultation, the fact that there are already two excellent pedestrian and cycle bridges within quarter of a mile of the site, the misuse of £10million of public money intended to facilitate affordable housing - but what I want to focus on today is how the bridge singularly fails to meet its own intended purpose - to provide a floodproof connection from Osney Mead to Oxpens.  

The local plan 2036, at pages 134-135, specifies the need for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge to link Osney Mead with the other side of the river. The local plan also makes clear that a flood evacuation path out of Osney Mead is required for planning permission to be granted for the site. The notes on Policy SP2, covering Osney Mead, state that “The site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate how the development will be safe otherwise planning permission will not be granted. It is recognised that the FRA may not be able to demonstrate a dry risk/ low hazard rating route to dry land.” (134, 9.23)  

So the local plan specifies the need for both a new bridge linking Osney Mead to the other side of the river, and a floodproof route out of Osney Mead. These two things have subsequently been combined into plans for a single floodproof connection reaching all the way from Osney Mead across the river, as is made clear in several official documents, including for example, the pathworks optioneering report commissioned by the City Council and produced by Stantec in 2022.  

But there is a problem. The Council decided not to build this bridge directly from Osney Mead to Oxpens, as envisaged by the local plan, but instead to build it on adjacent community-owned green space, from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadow. What this meant was that, to reach this new bridge from Osney Mead, users would now have to go across a stream and under a railway bridge along a section of the towpath that frequently floods.  

To solve this problem, the City Council commissioned Stantec to develop a project called the Osney Pathworks, to create a new floodproof path linking Osney Mead to the planned new bridge. The preferred plan was to erect floodwalls under the railway bridge. But the Environment Agency vetoed this proposal in 2022, as it would cause further flooding elsewhere. None of the other solutions suggested by Stantec meet current standards, and their report admitted there is no solution available which adequately addresses the flooding issue whilst also meeting current safety standards for cycling and walking.  

This remains the case today. There is still no solution to the issue of flooding on the path between Osney Mead and the proposed new bridge.  

This makes the bridge completely redundant. It does not serve the basic purpose for which it is required in the local plan - to provide a new floodproof connection from Osney Mead across the river.  

This is very serious, because, as I said, without such a connection, the 600 new graduate rooms planned for Osney Mead cannot be granted planning permission.  This raises the possibility of a fourth bridge within a quarter of a mile having to be built, directly connecting Osney Mead and Oxpens, as originally envisaged by the local plan.  

The City Council is now right on the verge of committing up to £14million of public money and causing irrevocable damage to a cherished piece of countryside on our doorstep, for a bridge that singularly fails to meet its basic purpose. We urge you - please do not be a party to this shocking waste of money and biodiversity. The 2000 mostly local residents who have signed up to our campaign of course believe that the bridge in its current location should be scrapped altogether. However, at a bare minimum, it is abundantly clear that no further funds should be committed so long as there remains no viable plan to floodproof the connection between Osney Mead and the new bridge. Without this in place, the bridge serves no purpose that is not already met by the two existing bridges in the area.  

If you would like to be in touch about this, or to see any of the documentation I have referred to today, please do not hesitate to be in touch with Friends of Grandpont Nature Park. 

The Chair thanked Mr. Glazebrook and invited questions from the Committee.  

Councillor Ottino sought to clarify the role of the Scrutiny Committee when discussing item 7, noting limitations to its powers and the need to ensure it does not encroach on the role of other committees. The Chair confirmed that the Scrutiny Committee is not a decision-making body but can deliberate and comment on reports before them. The Chair reminded members of their responsibility to constrain their questions to those relevant only to the report provided and to declare any relevant interests. 

Councillor Altaf-Khan noted his understanding that the report in item 7 related to the capital programme and a request for more money to pursue the project. As such he expressed his belief that the Scrutiny Committee is entitled to question the Cabinet Member on this and discuss the report. The Committee also heard that Councillor Altaf-Khan did not see the value in repeating any historic discussions relating to planning and design of the project.  

The Chair reminded members that questions at this stage of the meeting should relate only to Mr. Glazebrook’s address.   

The Committee asked no further questions.  

The Chair thanked Mr. Glazebrook.  

 
Councillor Mundy joined the meeting.