Student flats plan is lost on appeal

thisisoxfordshire: Castle Mill accommodation viewed from Roger Dudman Way Castle Mill accommodation viewed from Roger Dudman Way

A BUSINESSMAN wanting to build nine student flats in Oxford’s Roger Dudman Way has lost his planning appeal.

Tariq Khuja appealed against Oxford City Council’s refusal of planning permission to build on land next to Thames Wharf.

The plans for student rooms over three floors was opposed by local residents, who said there was already substantial student accommodation on the road, with the completion nearby of Oxford University’s controversial Castle Mill student blocks.

They warned it would lead to increased levels of noise and late night disturbance.

Upholding the council’s decision in his ruling made on Tuesday planning inspector G. Powys Jones said the scheme would have “an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance” of the surrounding area.

Oxford city council officers had recommended acceptance of the plan.

A spokesman for the Save Port Meadow campaign group said they were “delighted” at the decision.

Our top stories:

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:04am Thu 12 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper...

But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used.

Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...
So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper... But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used. Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt... Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 2

12:57pm Thu 12 Jun 14

King Joke says...

I'd agree, it's important to make good use of infill, but where is your evidence that the Green Party was involved in this decision Andrew?
I'd agree, it's important to make good use of infill, but where is your evidence that the Green Party was involved in this decision Andrew? King Joke
  • Score: 8

1:32pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

King Joke wrote:
I'd agree, it's important to make good use of infill, but where is your evidence that the Green Party was involved in this decision Andrew?
You need to drill down a bit and note that the Save Port Meadow Campaign expressed delight...

Then cross reference with people who have been photographed supporting the Save Port Meadow Campaign in the local press...

If you look at the "activists" in the photo of this story...

http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/1114203
4.___Nothing_is_off_
table____in_review_o
f_Port_Meadow_studen
t_flats/

Sushila Dhall - Green Party Member
Sue Gerhardt - Oxfordshire Green Party Website as Volunteer Leafleter
Dr Sietske Boeles - Failed Green Party Councillor for Northway
Richard Luff - Listed on Oxfordshire Green Website

Unfortunately the actual comments have now been censored from the OCC website.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: I'd agree, it's important to make good use of infill, but where is your evidence that the Green Party was involved in this decision Andrew?[/p][/quote]You need to drill down a bit and note that the Save Port Meadow Campaign expressed delight... Then cross reference with people who have been photographed supporting the Save Port Meadow Campaign in the local press... If you look at the "activists" in the photo of this story... http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/1114203 4.___Nothing_is_off_ table____in_review_o f_Port_Meadow_studen t_flats/ Sushila Dhall - Green Party Member Sue Gerhardt - Oxfordshire Green Party Website as Volunteer Leafleter Dr Sietske Boeles - Failed Green Party Councillor for Northway Richard Luff - Listed on Oxfordshire Green Website Unfortunately the actual comments have now been censored from the OCC website. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -3

5:26pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Sophia says...

Nonsense. There were over 100 objections from all over. All people who sees what Andrew does not, the particular beauty of the Thames there. Very few applications generate such widespread objection

In any case the appeal was refused not because of what local people said but because the application contravenes council planning policy on siting of new student blocks
Nonsense. There were over 100 objections from all over. All people who sees what Andrew does not, the particular beauty of the Thames there. Very few applications generate such widespread objection In any case the appeal was refused not because of what local people said but because the application contravenes council planning policy on siting of new student blocks Sophia
  • Score: -6

5:56pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Interestedinoxford says...

Oxford University got permission and not a private landlord. Who owns Oxford ?
Oxford University got permission and not a private landlord. Who owns Oxford ? Interestedinoxford
  • Score: -3

6:16pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Isawyoucoming says...

Interestedinoxford wrote:
Oxford University got permission and not a private landlord. Who owns Oxford ?
the University of oxford.
[quote][p][bold]Interestedinoxford[/bold] wrote: Oxford University got permission and not a private landlord. Who owns Oxford ?[/p][/quote]the University of oxford. Isawyoucoming
  • Score: 3

6:54pm Thu 12 Jun 14

thomashenry says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper...

But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used.

Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...
If the land in question were brownfield, you might have a point.

But it's not.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper... But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used. Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...[/p][/quote]If the land in question were brownfield, you might have a point. But it's not. thomashenry
  • Score: 1

6:55pm Thu 12 Jun 14

thomashenry says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper...

But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used.

Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...
If the land in question was brownfield, you might have a point.

But it's not.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper... But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used. Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...[/p][/quote]If the land in question was brownfield, you might have a point. But it's not. thomashenry
  • Score: -3

7:17am Fri 13 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

thomashenry wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper...

But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used.

Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...
If the land in question were brownfield, you might have a point.

But it's not.
It would appear that you are either deliberately dishonest or have not read the documents in full.

The planning inspectorate acknowledge it is indeed a brownfield site. Check section 10 of the PR report.

It opens the doors really to anything except student accommodation on the site.
[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: So in recent days the Greens have been whining about not building in gap sites and brownfield sites within the city limits in this very paper... But when it comes to building these out sites they are quite happy to work together with their partners at the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE to prevent the very kind of site they are promoting from being used. Every square metre of brownfield site that is refused planning permission through "Activist" campaigning should automatically release a square metre of greenbelt...[/p][/quote]If the land in question were brownfield, you might have a point. But it's not.[/p][/quote]It would appear that you are either deliberately dishonest or have not read the documents in full. The planning inspectorate acknowledge it is indeed a brownfield site. Check section 10 of the PR report. It opens the doors really to anything except student accommodation on the site. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

8:06am Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

Of course it's brownfield. THat whole area was railway yards.

Anyone who thinks this area has always been rural idyll is sadly deluded. Find an aerial photo from the 1950s and you will see that end of Oxford contained two stations, a gas works, a jam factory, an extensive railway goods depot, carriage sidings and a motive power depot (this when trains were coal-powered).

Our main industry is now exporting degrees to wealthy foreigners' children, so it's only right the 'factories' are located on ex-industrial land.
Of course it's brownfield. THat whole area was railway yards. Anyone who thinks this area has always been rural idyll is sadly deluded. Find an aerial photo from the 1950s and you will see that end of Oxford contained two stations, a gas works, a jam factory, an extensive railway goods depot, carriage sidings and a motive power depot (this when trains were coal-powered). Our main industry is now exporting degrees to wealthy foreigners' children, so it's only right the 'factories' are located on ex-industrial land. King Joke
  • Score: 1

10:24am Fri 13 Jun 14

malevich says...

This particular space was completely re-wilded . The Environment Agency spent a considerable sum to do extensive replanting of wildflowers along this stretch of Thames . It was ..and i use the word WAS a haven for Kingfishers and host of other animals .
Perhaps if you spend your time locked inside learning how to screw other people over then this destruction doesn't matter.
However for people who live in this City little pockets of green space are all the more important, and then there's our rapidly dwindling biodiversity
This particular space was completely re-wilded . The Environment Agency spent a considerable sum to do extensive replanting of wildflowers along this stretch of Thames . It was ..and i use the word WAS a haven for Kingfishers and host of other animals . Perhaps if you spend your time locked inside learning how to screw other people over then this destruction doesn't matter. However for people who live in this City little pockets of green space are all the more important, and then there's our rapidly dwindling biodiversity malevich
  • Score: 2

10:50am Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

It's possible to move habitats, and the wildilfe they contain, just like the bats will be moved out of the Wolvercot tunnel.

Plenty of people are already being screwed over by the housing shortage, and the alternative to infill development is far more widespread destruction on the green belt, which is just as important to city dwellers, and is indeed why the green belt was set up in the first place.
It's possible to move habitats, and the wildilfe they contain, just like the bats will be moved out of the Wolvercot tunnel. Plenty of people are already being screwed over by the housing shortage, and the alternative to infill development is far more widespread destruction on the green belt, which is just as important to city dwellers, and is indeed why the green belt was set up in the first place. King Joke
  • Score: 4

1:13pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

malevich wrote:
This particular space was completely re-wilded . The Environment Agency spent a considerable sum to do extensive replanting of wildflowers along this stretch of Thames . It was ..and i use the word WAS a haven for Kingfishers and host of other animals .
Perhaps if you spend your time locked inside learning how to screw other people over then this destruction doesn't matter.
However for people who live in this City little pockets of green space are all the more important, and then there's our rapidly dwindling biodiversity
Yet another conflicting statement...

The Save Port Meadow Campaign have being going frantic claiming the entire area is riddled with the contamination of "hydrocarbons, metals and asbestos".

Yet you say that the environment agency spent a considerable amount of money "rewilding" the area - which clearly couldn't be done without removing all the contaminants...

Both statements can't possibly be correct!
[quote][p][bold]malevich[/bold] wrote: This particular space was completely re-wilded . The Environment Agency spent a considerable sum to do extensive replanting of wildflowers along this stretch of Thames . It was ..and i use the word WAS a haven for Kingfishers and host of other animals . Perhaps if you spend your time locked inside learning how to screw other people over then this destruction doesn't matter. However for people who live in this City little pockets of green space are all the more important, and then there's our rapidly dwindling biodiversity[/p][/quote]Yet another conflicting statement... The Save Port Meadow Campaign have being going frantic claiming the entire area is riddled with the contamination of "hydrocarbons, metals and asbestos". Yet you say that the environment agency spent a considerable amount of money "rewilding" the area - which clearly couldn't be done without removing all the contaminants... Both statements can't possibly be correct! Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -1

4:08pm Sat 14 Jun 14

malevich says...

No conflicting statements here. It's the river bank and adjacent land that is the re-widled bit that the environment Agency spent a lot of money enhancing and that includes the appeal site mentioned in the article.
The bit you are getting confused about are the allotments ( contaminated) and the railway sidings where the RDW blocks are ( highly contaminated ) - these last two are NOT the appeal site

However one thing should be noted - the newly cleared adjacent allotments were recently extensively covered in Willows which are excellent trees for taking contaminants out. One hopes that if there had been any leachate of contaminants here nature was locking them up .

It's best to familiarise yourself with the site before jumping into the arguments .
No conflicting statements here. It's the river bank and adjacent land that is the re-widled bit that the environment Agency spent a lot of money enhancing and that includes the appeal site mentioned in the article. The bit you are getting confused about are the allotments ( contaminated) and the railway sidings where the RDW blocks are ( highly contaminated ) - these last two are NOT the appeal site However one thing should be noted - the newly cleared adjacent allotments were recently extensively covered in Willows which are excellent trees for taking contaminants out. One hopes that if there had been any leachate of contaminants here nature was locking them up . It's best to familiarise yourself with the site before jumping into the arguments . malevich
  • Score: 2

4:18pm Sat 14 Jun 14

malevich says...

To King Joke
"It's possible to move habitats, and the wildilfe they contain, just like the bats will be moved out of the Wolvercot tunnel."

Kingfishers are a protected species and a breeding pair existed along this stretch of river - no more sadly
Destroying Kingfisher habitat is a criminal offence - as was what happened along this stretch of river when the allotments were cleared. This criminal action was sanctioned by a local ward councillor .

If councillors are prepared to stand by and endorse and ignore crime then we really are f%$^ed.

And i ask do we just keeping moving wildlife and habitats out further and further away? Where / when do we stop ? Just so a University can expand to compete with Yale and Harvard.
... and anyway most of these relocations don't work .
Just ask any honest person who works in a wildlife consultancy
To King Joke "It's possible to move habitats, and the wildilfe they contain, just like the bats will be moved out of the Wolvercot tunnel." Kingfishers are a protected species and a breeding pair existed along this stretch of river - no more sadly Destroying Kingfisher habitat is a criminal offence - as was what happened along this stretch of river when the allotments were cleared. This criminal action was sanctioned by a local ward councillor . If councillors are prepared to stand by and endorse and ignore crime then we really are f%$^ed. And i ask do we just keeping moving wildlife and habitats out further and further away? Where / when do we stop ? Just so a University can expand to compete with Yale and Harvard. ... and anyway most of these relocations don't work . Just ask any honest person who works in a wildlife consultancy malevich
  • Score: 2

9:12pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

malevich wrote:
No conflicting statements here. It's the river bank and adjacent land that is the re-widled bit that the environment Agency spent a lot of money enhancing and that includes the appeal site mentioned in the article.
The bit you are getting confused about are the allotments ( contaminated) and the railway sidings where the RDW blocks are ( highly contaminated ) - these last two are NOT the appeal site

However one thing should be noted - the newly cleared adjacent allotments were recently extensively covered in Willows which are excellent trees for taking contaminants out. One hopes that if there had been any leachate of contaminants here nature was locking them up .

It's best to familiarise yourself with the site before jumping into the arguments .
Why on earth did the Environment agency spend money on a privately owned section of brownfield site?
[quote][p][bold]malevich[/bold] wrote: No conflicting statements here. It's the river bank and adjacent land that is the re-widled bit that the environment Agency spent a lot of money enhancing and that includes the appeal site mentioned in the article. The bit you are getting confused about are the allotments ( contaminated) and the railway sidings where the RDW blocks are ( highly contaminated ) - these last two are NOT the appeal site However one thing should be noted - the newly cleared adjacent allotments were recently extensively covered in Willows which are excellent trees for taking contaminants out. One hopes that if there had been any leachate of contaminants here nature was locking them up . It's best to familiarise yourself with the site before jumping into the arguments .[/p][/quote]Why on earth did the Environment agency spend money on a privately owned section of brownfield site? Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 2

12:41pm Sun 15 Jun 14

malevich says...

you really do need to get out more....it's the river bank and adjacent land. Go and have a look !!!
you really do need to get out more....it's the river bank and adjacent land. Go and have a look !!! malevich
  • Score: 5

12:43pm Sun 15 Jun 14

malevich says...

or are you stuck in Ramsay House ?
or are you stuck in Ramsay House ? malevich
  • Score: 5

6:38pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

malevich wrote:
you really do need to get out more....it's the river bank and adjacent land. Go and have a look !!!
So what's the point of bringing the environment agency's work into it then?

It has no conneciton with the planned private development on the brownfield site.
[quote][p][bold]malevich[/bold] wrote: you really do need to get out more....it's the river bank and adjacent land. Go and have a look !!![/p][/quote]So what's the point of bringing the environment agency's work into it then? It has no conneciton with the planned private development on the brownfield site. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -6

6:46pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

malevich wrote:
or are you stuck in Ramsay House ?
I can honestly say that I've never visited Ramsay House.

Either before OCC vacated it in 2012 or since.
[quote][p][bold]malevich[/bold] wrote: or are you stuck in Ramsay House ?[/p][/quote]I can honestly say that I've never visited Ramsay House. Either before OCC vacated it in 2012 or since. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -1

5:01pm Mon 16 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

This decision is either racist or smacks of lack of a bung. There are already in excess of 200 student flats along Roger Dudman Way, so how are 9 more going to cause the Death, Doom and Destruction, that the usual anti suspects stated would happen? I wonder what the budget of The Universities planning department to "help with" the planning approval process is?
This decision is either racist or smacks of lack of a bung. There are already in excess of 200 student flats along Roger Dudman Way, so how are 9 more going to cause the Death, Doom and Destruction, that the usual anti suspects stated would happen? I wonder what the budget of The Universities planning department to "help with" the planning approval process is? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -7

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree