The development has been attacked for the environmental impact on Port Meadow, a declared a ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) took the case to the High Court, with the support of the Save Port Meadow Campaign, which has held a number of demonstrations in opposition to the development which has cost over £20 million. An online petition against the Castle Mill project attracted more than 3,000 signatures, and the development has also been criticised by UKIP in Oxford.
The High Court judge who ruled against a judicial review this week, Mr Justice Lewis, highlighted the fact that an environmental assessment is being carried out by the University, but rejected Oxford City Council’s demand that the campaigners pay for the council’s legal costs.
The buildings, which opened this term to house 439 graduate students, were approved by the Oxford City Council, a decision which has been heavily criticised by its opponents. According to the Save Port Meadow Campaign, “The buildings vandalise the views of the Dreaming Spires and ruin the tranquil experience of Port Meadow.”
Helen Marshall, Director of Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Oxfordshire, said, “So far, we believe the University has acted very poorly in its supposed role as guardian of the City’s heritage. The pressure is now on for it to step up to the plate and act honourably in fulfilling its promises made in court.”
She added, “Providing the voluntary Environmental Impact Assessment is carried out in the way the Court envisaged, including the full public consultation we were originally denied, there is still hope that we can reverse at least some of the damage done to Port Meadow.”
Jeremy Thomas, head of law and governance at Oxford City Council, stated, “The court refused permission to the CPRE to continue the judicial review and did not find any errors in how the council handled this planning application.
“We will now focus our attention on the voluntary environmental impact assessment which is being prepared by the university and the independent inquiry that is being held which is also under way.”
However, James Rainey, Chair of OUSU’s Environment and Ethics committee, told Cherwell, “The high court ruling is extremely disappointing. A judicial review could have addressed the valid concerns held by those in Oxford and further afield about the validity of the development and the scope for dealing with skyline issues in the planning process. The Castle Mill development has significantly damaged the University’s and Council’s reputations, and it is in their best interest that a similar development is not permitted again.”
A University spokesperson said, “We are pleased with the ruling. We will continue to work with the city council to address concerns about the Castle Mill development.”
