Oxford City Council defeats High Court challenge over planning consent for Oxpens bridge

A local amenity group has lost a High Court challenge to Oxford City Council’s decision to give itself planning consent for a new bridge.

The bridge would be for pedestrians and cyclists and span the River Thames from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadows.

Campaigner Deborah Glass Woodin brought the case before Dan Kolinsky KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, on behalf of Friends of Grandpont Nature Park.

Mr Kolinsky said he had five grounds before him. These were that Oxford erred in law by making a material mistake of fact in the committee report and/or by officers in committee, and was given unlawful advice that an Environmental Impact Assessment screening decision could not be revisited.

The claimant also argued that Oxford erred by regarding the bridge as a ‘standalone' project rather than being integral to a wider development and by adopting a flawed approach to whether an EIA was required, alleging this relied on a future EIA for a different planning application being done later.

Other grounds were that it was unlawful for officers to advise members that they should not allow themselves to be lobbied on the planning application and that Oxford erred in law by failing to take account of a 2016 report for Oxfordshire County Council affecting the area.

The court heard that Grandpont Nature Park covers eight acres on the south bank of the River Thames on a former gas works.

Oxford issued a negative screening opinion in January 2022 indicating that an EIA was not required and the application came before the planning committee in March 2024.

Officers recommended approval and said the principle of development was supported by the policies of the Local Plan, with which the committee agreed.

Mr Kolinsky said: “It is clear that the plan does support a bridge in this location. The northern part of the bridge is unquestionably located in an Area of Change in the plan. The plan explicitly supports improving cycling and pedestrian routes and enhancing connectivity across waterways. No new bridge in Oxpens Meadow could do so without crossing the Thames.

“As I read the development plan, there is support for a bridge in Oxpens Meadow. It is plain that such a bridge would need to cross the Thames to achieve the development plan's objectives. A bridge in Oxpens Meadow which crosses the river must, as a matter of geography, land in Grandpont Nature Park.”

He added that the analyses in officers’ reports recommending approval were “consistent with that reality [and] the claimant's legal argument is not”.

Mr Kolinsky added: “My conclusion is that there was no material error of fact in the advice given to members that a bridge in this location was supported by the development plan policies.”

Turning to the point about whether the bridge was a standalone project, Mr Kolinsky said: “The claimant's argument is that the advice given to members that the bridge was not integral to other development was seriously misleading and irrational ‘because the evidence pointed in the other direction’ due to the ‘interconnected nature of the pathworks development’”.

He said: “The claimant has failed to establish that the analysis that the bridge was not integral to other development was irrational.

"It is the nature of such fact specific judgments that reasonable people may differ on them. It is unsurprising that phrases and nuances can be drawn out of funding documents which emphasise the role of the bridge in facilitating development.

“However…it is clear in my assessment that the defendant's officers' grappled with the issue in the advice given to members at the April Meeting and did so lawfully.”

Mr Kolinsky rejected all other grounds brought by the claimants.

Mark Smulian