The Spring Residential phase

In summer 2006. BWB's new preferred developer emerged: Spring Residential, a division of Castlemore Securities. Spring, in accordance with the planning inspector's decision, then contacted the JCA and in February 2007 concluded with us an agreement for the contribution of a piece of land should the development go ahead. Contracts were exchanged in May 2007. Meanwhile in 2006, the City Council's Executive Board had endorsed a strategy for the procurement, future ownership, and management of the new centre. The full report to the Board, on which this decision was based, is available as a pdf file if you click here: Report to Executive .

However, the JCA still opposed Spring's plans for the development of the rest of the site.The City Council agreed and in December 2007 the Central South and West Area Committee rejected Spring's planning application. In all there were nine reasons for refusal. In addition to those proposed by the officers, the councillors added five more. The evening started with protests outside the town hall. The ensuring meeting, chaired by Jericho Councillor, Colin Cook, was packed and noisy, and heard strong statements against the proposal from among other, Philip Pullman, John Keyes for the Jericho Community Boatyard, and Charlotte Christie for the Jericho Community Association. Spring had four representatives at the meeting but they declined to speak.

The main objections were: the lack of provision for a new boatyard, since the owners of the land in Yarnton are refusing to use it for this purpose; the failure to offer 50% affordable housing, the height and design of the new buildings which were generally considered ugly; and the failure to meet environmental standards.

Spring launched an appeal against the Council's decision which was heard by another planning inspector in August 2008. On the first day of the appeal, Spring’s barrister, Jeremy Cahill, conceded that the history of this development had been a ‘public relations nightmare’. The strength of local opposition was evident even that morning outside the Town Hall, as a ‘silent protest’ drew around 200 people, including Philip Pullman who was interviewed live on Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme.

Demonstrators outside the Town Hall at the start of the Appeal

The six-day hearing had a packed agenda. The Inspector, a town planner, heard from more than a dozen expert witnesses testifying on a wide range of issues, from boatyard facilities, to planning policy to flood control. Although this was not a trial it did at times have the atmosphere of a Crown Court. Some of the evidence was painstakingly tracked with the aid of mobile phone records.

Spring faced opposition from three directions: first, the City Council; second, the Jericho Community Boatyard; third, the combined efforts of the Jericho Living Heritage Trust and the Jericho Community Association.

In September 2008 the Inspector rejected Spring's appeal on four main grounds:

1. Inadequate replacement boatyard facilities - "I remain concerned that deficiencies in the Yarnton site, namely its distance from Jericho and the difficulties of carrying out DIY and maintenance work alongside the tow path, weigh against its accessibility and suitability. Without assurance of additional off-path berthing or working space in a convenient and sustainable location, I remain unconvinced that the expectations of Policy SR.12 would be fulfilled, even by the extent of the facilities delivered in the scheme and through the unilateral undertaking. Furthermore, the water related land use element of the scheme would be relegated to a small, discreet part of the appeal site, which is unfortunate in an area where canal and boating are important elements of its character.

2. Poor design - "The architectural style deployed may be distinctive in its own right. However, in the context of the modest, varied character of much of what exists at Jericho, the rigid geometric forms would appear out of place and forbidding, while also drawing little from the canalside buildings to the north of the site. To my mind, the canal facing facades would be repetitious and uninspiring. It has to be said, the buildings would lack elegance and lightness of touch that are important to the visual success of a scheme of this particular architectural language, and in such a prominent location."

3. Inadequate public square - "The preponderance of residential ccommodation across the site, in particular around the edges of the square, would render it sterile and inactive, lacking a sense of distinctive place with little connection to the character or history of Jericho. The buildings’ monotonous appearance would add to the sense of an inanimate environment."

4. Effect on St Barnabas Church - "Integration of the western aspect of the church with the new square would benefit the setting of the church, which is currently hemmed in by its western boundary wall. Nevertheless, improvements brought about by removal of the wall would be negated by the inhospitable quality of the public domain and design of the new buildings. The effect, on balance, would be material harm to the setting of St Barnabas Church."

One of the other main areas of contention was the low proportion of affordable housing 35%, rather that the 50% required by the Oxford local plan. In this case, however, the Inspector concluded that the other facilities being offered, notably space for a square and land for a community centre would offset this loss. You can download the full text of the Inspector's ruling by clicking here .

The company that owns Spring has now gone into administration, so the site is now in the hand of the administrator, PricewaterhouseCoopers.