R (oao Deborah Glass Woodin on behalf of Friends of Grandpont Nature Park) v Oxford City Council

Hearing dates: 4–5 February 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10 am on 10 March 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Dan Kolinsky KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge):

The Claimant brings this judicial review claim on behalf of the Friends of Grandpont Nature Park (“FGNP”), an unincorporated association. She challenges the Defendant's decision dated 8 July 2024 to grant planning permission to itself for the construction of a pedestrian and cycle bridge (known as Oxpens Bridge) across the River Thames from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadows.

Permission to proceed with the judicial review claim was granted by Lang J on 3 October 2024.

There are five grounds of challenge. The parties' agreed formulation of the issues is as follows.

a) (ground 1) whether the Defendant erred in law by making a material mistake of fact in relation to statements made in the committee report and/or by officers in committee.

b) (ground 2) whether the Defendant was given unlawful advice that they could not revisit its Council's Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) screening decision.

c) (ground 3) whether the Defendant erred in law (i) by regarding the proposed development as being a “standalone” project rather than being “integral to” a wider development project (and whether that was irrational in the Wednesbury sense) and/or (ii) by adopting a flawed approach to the question of whether an EIA was required, in that (as alleged) it relies on a future EIA for a different planning application being done later.

d) (ground 4) whether (i) it was unlawful of officers to advise members that they should not allow themselves to be lobbied on the planning application and/or (ii) there was inadequate “separation of powers” in the decision made by the Defendant.

e) (ground 5) whether the Defendant erred in law by failing to take account of a material consideration, namely, a 2016 report produced for Oxfordshire County Council entitled “Riverside Routes to City Centre: Existing Route Improvements – Gasworks Railway: Feasibility Report” (“the 2016 Report”).

This judgment addresses matters in the following order:—

a. Factual Background

b. Legal Approach – overview

c. Alleged Material Error of Fact (ground 1)

d. Challenges to the EIA procedure (grounds 2 and 3)

e. Procedural Challenges (ground 4)

f. Alleged Failure to take account of a material consideration (ground 5).

Part A: Factual Background

Grandpont Nature Park (“GNP”) is an 8 acre nature park on the south bank of the River Thames, close to Oxford Town Centre. GNP is sited on land of a former gas works facility which ceased to function in the 1960's. GNP was established in the 1980's. It does not have any specific protected planning designation but is valued locally as a nature reserve.

To the north of GNP across the River Thames is the Oxpens area. This consists of brownfield land, the Oxford ice rink and Oxpens Meadow.

To the west of GNP, on the other side of mainline railway tracks, is the Osney Mead area.

As discussed further below, Oxpens and Osney Mead are each allocated for development in the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (“the Local Plan”) adopted on 8 June 2020.

An existing bridge crosses into GNP from the north side of the Thames. This is the Gasworks Bridge. It is a former railway bridge which has been repurposed as a pedestrian and cycle bridge. It lies approximately 100m to the east of the site of the proposed Oxpens Bridge and east of castle mill stream. There is a connection into Oxpens meadow in a location which has been susceptible to flooding.

The planning permission under challenge is for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge from Oxpens Meadows (on the north side of the River Thames), across the river and into GNP on the south side of the river. The planning permission covers associated works and new connecting paths on the south side of the river in GNP.

On 16 December 2021 Stantec UK Limited on behalf of the Defendant wrote to the Defendant's planning department to request a screening decision to determine whether an EIA was required under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”).

The Defendant issued a negative screening opinion on 7 January 2022 indicating that an EIA was not required.

The planning application was submitted on 23 October 2023. The description of development applied for was “ Construction of a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the River Thames, from Grandpont to Oxpens Meadows comprising:

(i) A steel bridge structure with a total span of 98.90m with a river span of 23.9m;

(ii) Associated access points;

(iii) Improvements to existing footpath/cycleway connections;

(iv) Ecological enhancements and ancillary development including hard and soft landscaping”.

The application was considered by the Defendant's planning committee on 19 March 2024 (“the March Committee Meeting”). The planning officers' report to that meeting recommended approval of the scheme (“the March OR”). It advised (in the executive summary section and planning material considerations section) that the principle of development was supported by the policies of the Local Plan. It evaluated a range of planning considerations and addressed objections to the proposal (as well as recording some support for it).

The Planning Committee resolved to approve the application in line with the officers' recommendation. The notes of the discussion at the March Committee Meeting show that some members opposed the application. There was debate about whether the project should be treated as EIA development due to its relationship with the wider development of the area. A motion to refuse the application was proposed but defeated.

Following the March Committee Meeting, the Defendant's Planning Review Committee (“PRC”) called in the application for redetermination for the following reasons:

“The building of a new bridge adjacent to an existing bridge is not an efficient use of land or resources to deliver sustainable growth and development and is therefore contrary to policies RE1 and RE2 in the Local Plan”

(Policy RE 1 is a sustainable design and construction policy. Policy RE 2 is concerned with the efficient use of land).

The PRC met to determine the application on 18 April 2024. A further planning officers' report (“the April OR”) was prepared. It attached the March OR as an appendix and advised that the reports should be read together. The April OR addressed issues which had been raised in debate at the March Committee Meeting (see paras 1.6 and 1.21) and those raised by the call-in resolution.

The April OR is discussed further below. By way of overview:—

a. It addressed (at paras 1.23–1.29) the concerns expressed in the call-in resolution as to the compatibility of the proposal with policies RE1 and RE2. It concluded that the proposal was compatible with those policies.

b. It addressed (at paras 1.30–1.33) the justification for a new bridge in preference to upgrading the Gasworks Bridge.

c. It addressed (at paras 1.34–1.37) the impact of the proposed bridge on GNP.

d. It advised in para 1.38 that funding for the bridge was not a material planning consideration.

e. It reiterated advice given orally at the March Committee Meeting that the proposal had been screened and an EIA was not required (see paras 1.39–1.41). It stated (at para 1.41) that “ the application for the bridge is a standalone development that can be delivered on its own without the need for the Oxpens or Osney Mead allocations to be delivered and vice versa. Therefore the bridge does not need to be screened with the surrounding allocations and was therefore screened on its own merits”.

f. Having addressed other planning considerations including flooding, the April OR advised that the proposal accorded with the development plan and that planning permission should be granted.

Prior to the PRC meeting in April (“the April Meeting”), there was correspondence between FGNP and members of the PRC seeking to arrange a site visit. This correspondence is discussed further in respect of ground 4 below.

The PRC resolved to grant planning permission by a narrow majority of 5 votes in favour and 4 votes against. A note of the lengthy meeting shows that (using the paragraph numbers of the note of the meeting):—

a. Members were shown visualisations of the proposed bridge and its relationship with GNP (paras 28–30).

b. Objectors spoke against the proposal (for a total of six minutes) (paras 32–35). They focussed on the need for an EIA to take account of the bridge's wider role in the regeneration of the area.

c. Supporters spoke in favour of the proposal (paras 41–45).

d. The Chair (and other members) identified some key points on which clarification was sought. This included whether an EIA was required. Ms Sally Fleming (advising planning lawyer) dealt with what the chair framed as the “fairly fundamental question” of whether the proposed bridge was “integral” to wider development (para 57). She explained why she did not consider that it was (see para 63).

e. A lengthy discussion ensued in which members raised concerns and asked questions. The EIA issue resurfaced during the discussion.

f. The resolution to grant planning...