This well attended Conference held on the 27th March had an excellent spread of speakers who provided a broad ranging insight into the benefits of heritage projects and the issues that they can raise. There were specific issues unique to Oxford but many aspects were relevant to any town with a heritage interest.

This was exemplified by the wider perspective provided by the first speaker, Dave Chetwyn, who is the Head of Planning Aid England with the RTPI, and Vice Chair of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC, the UK professional body for building conservation). Planning Aid’s community planning activities seek to involve ‘hard to engage groups’ in planning, including education and training in urban design and heritage.

The talk focused on the role of heritage in delivering a range of social, economic, community, regeneration and environmental benefits, including the Oxford Castle project. Dave provided examples of the many success stories where the refurbishment of heritage buildings in run down inner city areas, town centres, industrial areas, etc. Cities like Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham had used historic buildings and areas as the catalyst to rejuvenate the wider area and stimulate their rehabilitation by attracting the return of population. This facilitates the revitalisation and re-structuring of de-graded environments and encourages inward investment.

The benefits extend beyond the rescue and re-use of old buildings. They create local distinctiveness and help cater for diversity by extending choice in retail, housing and cultural facilities. The former jewellery quarter in Birmingham and Rochester in Kent are examples. The importance of the image of a place cannot be under-stated in terms of its ability to attract investment and population. Dave identified the importance of community by showing graffiti he saw that stated “No to City Cloning – Yes to Choice” - an epithet that all planners and developers should engrave on their Design and Access Statements.

Debbie Dance, the Director of the Oxford Preservation Trust (OPT) explained the dichotomy between the interests of the City and the University. The University with its obvious heritage of international importance preserves its interests but tends to turn its back on the consequences for the City as a whole. It is understandably focussed on its historic collegiate base. Each college is concerned primarily with its own status and the promotion of academic excellence. The result is little interest in the historic buildings in the remainder of the City and Debbie explained the difficulties of stimulating interest in the wider area. The OPT took the role of champion to change the perception of local residents in their City and to promote a sense of pride. The OPT took on the massive challenge of restoring the Castle and Prison.

The Prison closed in 1996. The 5 acre site was owned by County Council and it included The Castle with its Saxon Tower and Mound. A Conservation Plan was commissioned at the outset and project based development company, Oxford Castle Limited, put together the innovative ideas, and, made a scale model to engage the community.

The refurbishment was ambitious and involved a mix use scheme that notably included the conversion of the prison to the Malmaison Hotel using the cells as bedrooms and retaining the cast iron central stairs and walkways that provide the vision of “porridge”. The £40 million scheme also included 41 flats, restaurants and an educational centre.

The scheme also had the objectives of creating a new quarter in the City and integrating it into the City. The latter involved the removal of part of the listed prison wall. There is the potential for direct links into the refurbishment and extension of the Westgate Centre which will provide 30,000 m2 of retail floorspace.

There are other modest successes such as the restoration of the Martyrs Memorial but it is evident that, within the town, large parts of the public domain have been neglected.

Sadly, in the past, the town has not seen the excellence it deserves but perhaps this project which unlocks the town’s deeper history, will raise expectations. There is already great interest from the community in the proposals for the surface car park opposite the Castle Mound, which is owned by Nuffield College.

Mark Jaggard, Policy Planning Manager for the City, outlined the issues in the ‘renaissance project’ for the ‘West End’. It comes as a surprise to those unfamiliar with Oxford that the vision of ‘dreaming spires’ that is maintained in the historic core conceals unattractive outer areas that are in serious need of regeneration. Indeed, Oxford has retained its despised sixties architecture to a greater extent than many other more notorious urban areas.

The south west quarter is an extensive area that exhibits these attributes. Surface car parks and a hideous multi storey car park dominate the area. The good news is that it is so bad that it offers enormous potential. Besides the under-utilised areas, there are a number of buildings that are past their sell by date.

The objectives of the plan are typically commendable with ‘demand for excellence’ high on the agenda and the resolution of transport conflicts which anyone who has experienced the City’s congestion will appreciate. The creation of high quality public spaces and re-creating the old links to the core. Making a feature of the river frontage while addressing the flood risks.

The worry is that there are too many objectives with the provision of private and affordable housing, offices, hotel and student accommodation. However, the process is likely to have a long gestation period with the requirement to provide an Area Action Plan. It has taken 18 months from the beginning of the consultation period to date and it is anticipated that it will take a further 18 months until the plan is adopted.

Roger M Thomas is a member of the Characterisation Team at English Heritage (EH). EH is supporting a national programme to identify and map the evolution and historic character of towns and cities throughout England. The programme is grant-aided by EH and carried out by local authorities. ‘Characterisation’ as an approach was endorsed in the DCMS/DTLR document The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future (2001).

The programme is concerned with the archaeology of thirty-five major historic centres (including Oxford), with the development and character of smaller towns on a county basis (‘Extensive Urban Survey’) and with the historic character of major urban and industrial conurbations (such as Merseyside).The projects are GIS-based and the results are held by the local authorities. The use of GIS, in which database information is linked to areas (‘polygons’) defined on a map, produces a powerful analytical tool. A range of sources (such as maps, aerial photographs and archaeological evidence) are used to define areas of distinct present-day character and to identify how that character has developed over time. The aim is to understand how the urban environment of today derives from and relates to its past.
The results will enable planners, urban designers and others to take account of the existing character and ‘grain’ of urban places. Development and regeneration is often most successful when it acknowledges and builds on, rather than ignores, existing character and regional or local distinctiveness. EH’s urban characterisation programme is providing a comprehensive level of understanding on which such approaches can be based.

For more information see: www.english-heritage.org.uk/characterisation

The final speaker, Nick Worlledge, the City’s Conservation Officer, outlined the issues of dealing with conservation issues in a historic city of international renown where any development was likely to prove challenging. His slides illustrated the issues associated with identifying and understanding the significance of Oxford’s more recent built heritage such as the James Stirling’s Florey Building as many regard it as both a visual and practical failure. This building also revealed the other dilemma that not every building can be a landmark and there is merit in simply ‘fitting in’.

Nick emphasised the quality and certainty of outcomes required significant early dialogue. In this respect, he considered that the new Design and Access Statements for planning applications required developers and architects to justify their proposals, an element of the planning process that has been embedded in the Listed Building Consent regime for some time. Nick also emphasised the importance of engaging the community at an early stage.

Creating equal access for all to a site requires that the pedestrian network must be secure and provide good linkages. It benefited from good signage to assist wayfinding and sound attention to detail especially for the disabled.

Nick favoured conservation and urban design toolkits to identify opportunities and constraints to assist the evaluation of schemes. This was going to be essential in the assessment of the proposed University Library Depository which is over 20 metres high but the need is beyond dispute. This controversial proposal is proposed on a site at Osney Mead which affects views into the City. Planning is never easy!

Comments by Bryan Jezeph: RTPI

I can bring my own perspective as a very frequent visitor to Oxford as I have a daughter at the University and a son at Oxford Brookes. In my new and unexpected role as ‘removal’ man, I have faced the difficulties of congestion and parking. I was concerned that filling our Espace to the gunnels was unreasonably unsustainable but I was relieved when I heard that another couple brought two cars to cater for their son. The use of college accommodation for conferences requires total clearance at the end of each terms ie six moves each year and there are 10,000 students!

Not all students are housed in colleges. This also has serious consequences for the housing market as it has created a lucrative trade in student lettings. This has created landlords that reminded me of the ‘Rachman’ case in the sixties. It also means that the community is broken up with families forced out to the outer suburbs and beyond. The City is dominated by an extraordinarily transient population of students and tourists.

A visit to Oxford also demonstrates that the priority given to buses and cyclists can be excessive. With innumerable polluting buses creating conflict in Queen Street. The pleasures of the ambience of the Coffee House were destroyed by the passage of an endless procession of buses. Surely, a prime objective should be the exclusion of buses from the central area. Most people can walk from the wastelands of St Fridewides Square, a misnomer if ever I saw one.

The central area is overwhelmed by bikes parked against historic buildings and the numbers appear to greatly exceed the student population. I understand that there is an annual ‘cull’ but this needs to significantly increased to remove the vandalised and unused bikes on a more regular basis. It is clear evidence of the failure of the University and local authority to resolve a problem. The only signage of relevance was “No bikes against this wall”.

This beautiful City faces very serious problems created by its heritage. Transport is the key issue. The resolution of congestion, car parking, buses and cycles are fundamental.

More student accommodation in the central area is vital to encourage walking but with recognition that students have to be delivered. Accommodation is important for other reasons. The colleges, understandably, place the interests of their respective colleges paramount. But the need for cooperation between the colleges and the City is evident. Significant provision of student accommodation in the centre could release housing in the outer areas. I understand that there is demand for 5000 units of affordable housing and this could relieve some of the pressure.

The University dominates the City, both economically and architecturally, but it is a University of world prominence occupying a city of secondary importance. The University with its obvious heritage of international importance preserves its interests but tends to turn its back on the consequences for the City as a whole. It is understandably focussed on its historic collegiate base. Each college is concerned primarily with its own status and the promotion of academic excellence. There is little evidence that this will change. Indeed, there is a risk that both the Colleges and the City could suffer decline if these issues are not addressed.

Bryan Jezeph

Author:

Carol Dawson

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

30-May-07

Categories:

 

This article has been read 1035 times.