Watch Wharf campaign video

JCA Notices

Annual General Meeting 2026

The Annual General Meeting of the Jericho Community Association will be held on Monday, June 15th at 7.30 pm in Exeter College, Cohen Quad, Walton Street.

More information...
Community Centre Room

A room is now available for rent on the top floor of the Community Centre. Well lit. 145 sq ft.

More information...
Jericho Street Fair

The 2026 Street Fair will be on June 6 from mid-day to 4.30 pm.

More information...
Join your local association

The JCA represents residents on local issues, organizes events, and runs the community centre. Membership is FREE.

More information...
Saturday Cafe

Our popular Saturday morning cafe is running again

More information...
Jericho Pantry

Every Tuesday from 5.30 to 6.30 pm. The main purpose of the Pantry is to make food that would otherwise be thrown away accessible to people who live locally who can make use of it.

More information...

Oboe lessons in Jericho

NEWS ITEM

Canalside affordable housing

Canalside affordable housing
SIAHAF's Grantham House development, currently under construction. Consists of 27 'high specification' apartments and 2 'executive homes' with no affordable housing.

Community Association debates with SIAHAF

Posted - August 13, 2014
In the Oxford Mail 'Issues' feature on 13 August, Charlotte Christie, for the Jericho Community Association, and Johnny Sandelson for SIAHAF, offered opposing views on the proposed provision of affordable housing on the canalside site. This is Charlotte's statement: SIAHAF aims to build thirteen open-market houses and seven ‘affordable’ flats. In terms of units, this is only 32% affordable. And even that is flattering. The houses are far larger than the flats. Measured by floor space, the affordable proportion is 15%.
Charlotte Christie
This fails to meet urgent local needs and undermines efforts to maintain our historically diverse community. In Jericho 58% of homes are privately rented, and a further 21% are socially rented, of which most are owned by the City Council. Unfortunately, the balance has been shifting. In recent years the number of socially rented units has fallen substantially. At a Jericho Community Association meeting on July 21, residents rejected SIAHAF’s housing proposal. Moreover, our Alive and Kicking group, which runs activities for older residents, pointed out that the closure of Grantham House had removed sheltered accommodation for the over-60s. That building, also purchased by SIAHAF, is now being converted to luxury flats with no affordable housing. Alive and Kicking argue that the affordable units should be sheltered housing. SIAHAF’s proposal clearly fails to meet City planning requirements – which are that 50% of new housing should be affordable. Back in 2005, at the time of the previous canalside planning application, this policy was just being introduced. Since then it has been firmly established. In 2011, for example, it was specified in the City’s overall Sites and Housing Plan. In 2013 it was formally endorsed by the independent Planning Inspector and reiterated in the ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ for the Jericho canalside site. Now SIAHAF want to wind the clock back to the early 2000s. SIAHAF also says that it is obliged to build a square and a bridge, and also contribute land for the community centre and the boatyard – and that fulfilling all the City requirements would make the site unviable. In fact, some of the land for the square is coming from the Church and most of that for the community facilities is being provided by the City Council or has already been assigned to the Jericho Community Association as a result of a previous covenant with the Canal and River Trust. In any case, SIAHAF should have been well aware of these requirements when it bought the land – outbidding the Jericho Wharf Trust which had carefully valued the site and was planning to respect local needs and provide 50% affordable housing. Now SIAHAF claims it cannot afford to match this. Maybe it just rashly paid too much for the land. Does it deserve our sympathy if it makes slightly less profit? We don’t think so. To see the SIAHAF view, please go to the Oxford Mail website.