Is the Castle Mill development on the edge of Port Meadow an advantage, bringing social and economic benefits to Oxford, or has this gateway to the dreaming spires been made to look like a prison because of these halls of residence?

The debate, running for more than two years, reached a climax on Tuesday when the Oxford University Congregation, akin to the dons’ parliament, voted against removing the top floor of the development by 536 to 210.

Since 4,500 senior university people are members of Congregation and since the voting venue, the Sheldonian Theatre, holds only about 1,000 people (and it was packed for the vote) this is not a mandate and the debate is not over.

Indeed, Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch, who forced Congregation to vote on the matter, is continuing the fight by asking for a postal vote of all members.

Exactly two years ago today, five Lord Mayors of Oxford stoked the debate – even when the development was in the building stage – with a joint letter. “We acknowledge the need for more graduate student accommodation and we welcome the University of Oxford’s determination to meet this need. We accept that planning permission for this development was sought and obtained a year ago. However, we cannot persuade ourselves that the buildings now still rising, and their growing impact on the setting of Port Meadow, were foreseen.

Our top stories

“The immediate priority is to make sure that the present and future impending damage to the setting of Port Meadow is not carried through to completion, as the current planning permission would allow.

“Failure to act would do lasting damage, not only to the setting of Port Meadow but to the reputation of Oxford as a civilised place that values and safeguards its heritage”

Margaret Ounsley, the Oxford University head of government and community relations, disagreed. “An effective campaign makes people believe that the arguments it sets out are the only ones that matter: where they’re shining the light is the only place worth looking, basically. And in that sense the ‘One Floor Off’ group is clearly neatly run with its media-savvy soundbites, flyers and Facebook campaign all making a single point about a single issue.

“The Castle Mill story has become – literally – all about one view, neatly sidestepping many other complex factors, including the social and economic benefits brought to the city, and the fact that we are talking about potentially taking away people’s homes here.”

Vincent Goodstadt, former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute, carried out an independent review of the five-storey accommodation blocks on Roger Dudman Way with 439 units for graduate students overlooking an area listed as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

He found there was “inadequate consultation on the proposals” and “organisational incompetence”.

Peter Sloman, chief executive of Oxford City Council, says: “I agree with the report that with the benefit of hindsight the council and other organisations could have done more in this particular case.”

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England said the review contained “very damning findings” and failed to address issues including why an Environmental Impact Assessment was not carried out. Oxford City Council’s chief planning officer signed a form saying no Environmental Impact Assessment was needed as Port Meadow is “not a sensitive area and mitigation can be provided”.

Nick Worrlledge, leader of the Oxford City Council Heritage Team, issued a report warning that Oxford’s historic skyline “is fragile” and would be harmed by these new buildings. His report concluded: “There is no justification for this harm. It is accepted that this likely impact has only just come to light following a request for this aspect of the proposal to be evaluated.”

Oxford Mail:
Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch before the Congregation meeting

This report was issued 19 days before the relevant planning committee approved the controversial accommodation blocks, but was withheld from councillors. They were not made aware of these serious concerns by their own Heritage Team chief when they voted on the proposal. John Goddard, vice-chairman of the planning committee, said he was “horrified” to discover the extent of Nick Worrlledge’s concerns.

Government Planning Minister Nick Boles visited Oxford to see the Castle Mill development first hand.

He said: “Everybody understands that there is intense housing pressure in Oxford and that the university absolutely has to build more student accommodation. I believe that this is an example of exactly how not to go about doing that.

“Frankly, the only thing it reminds me of is the Maze Prison. I think the idea that this is the first view, from one of the most precious pieces of land in Oxfordshire, is something of which the university and the council should be profoundly ashamed.”

“I also think that they owe an apology to the people of Jericho, the people of Wolvercote, and indeed everybody who knows Oxford, who lives in Oxford and who loves Oxford.”

This whole debate raises a further question. I’ve talked about the Castle Mill development with several heads of Oxford colleges and professors and dons, and I have yet to find anyone who supports it.

So who are the supporters and, for the purpose of this debate, who is the university? Is it the estates department, the financial administration, the vice-chancellor and other bureaucrats with offices in Wellington Square? And how much influence do the academics, the graduates and the students have in this important decision about a mark the university will make on Oxford that will last long after they are all dead?