CAMPAIGNERS who lost their fight to stop a block of student flats in East Oxford have branded the outcome “a tragedy”.

Oxford City Council’s strategic development control committee granted planning permission for 27 student flats at 190 Iffley Road on Wednesday.

The decision angered neighbours who successfully convinced councillors on the East Area Parliament to reject the bid — twice.

Residents also won an appeal when the Government’s planning inspector upheld the council’s decision for refusal two years ago.

Last night committee chairman Roy Darke, whose casting vote decided the application, said if it had been rejected the council would have lost on appeal and been forced to pay out thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

But campaigner and neighbour Sarah Wild said: “There was a total lack of democracy in action — it’s a total disgrace.

“The application for substantial demolition of 190 Iffley Road and rebuild was validated despite failing to comply with national guidelines.

“The planning application omits essential information that any competent planning officer would demand before they were required to make a decision on its merits.”

Although the plan includes 27 student flats neither Oxford Brookes nor any Oxford University college has agreed to move in tenants. The 90-year-old building was once home to the Bishop of Oxford. The development will involve demolishing all but the front facade and side wall.

City councillor David Williams, a member of the East Area Parliament who voted against the scheme earlier this year, criticised the strategic development control committee’s decision.

He said: “It’s a real tragedy. It isn’t a derelict site, it’s a beautiful house.

“The residents won all the arguments but the vote was lost.”

Conditions imposed by the council on the developer include installing a resident warden and spending £6,000 on community facilities.

Mr Darke said: “There was a strong professional recommendation by our officers to approve the plan.

“The officers have good salaries to give us good advice.

“If we had gone against the recommendation it would have gone to appeal with the planning inspector.

“It is likely it would have been upheld and approved, and the council would have been made to pay costs.

“I’m not going to spend money on non-evidential reasons for refusing an application.

“It is a great building but it needs a little loving care by the developers.”