Why a public space and a bridge

Save Jericho Wharf Campaign Newletter No. 3.

Our online petition in favour of Compulsory Purchase by the Oxford City Council of the Jericho Wharf site has now gathered 1,905 signatures – more than the 1,217 votes cast in the Carfax/Jericho ward in the 2024 Oxford City elections! This newsletter is produced in order to keep supporters up to date with the ongoing Campaign. Our first issue in April also explained the need for a Community Boatyard, one of the key facilities specified in the Council’s adopted policies for the site. Our second issue in Junefocused on the importance of a new Community Centre. This issue looks at two other specified facilities: a public space and a new canal crossing. Both are not only much needed, but integral to the success of the site as a whole.

Posted August 04 2025

Where the Council stands

In the previous newsletter, we reported how the Hong Kong landowner’s latest ‘confidential’ marketing material showed plans to cover the site with up to 230 student flats – and omit all community facilities specified in the Council’s planning policies for the site. So far there is no sign of these plans in a formal planning application – and no sign that anyone has decided to buy the site from the current owner.
 
Councillor Alex Hollingsworth made a statement on the Jericho Wharf situation to a recent full Council meeting. He pointed out that the Council has been working with the Jericho Wharf Trust for many years to bring forward the Jericho Wharf site, and added: ‘I share their frustration that the site has not yet been developed for the long overdue community facilities needed.’
 
He went on to say that the Council remained open to using Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers to ensure development of the site, but that he viewed the process as inherently risky and potentially very expensive. It would be unlikely to succeed if the landowner came forward with another planning application and obtained permission. The current scheme’s permission lapses in February 2026.
 
The Council is therefore trying to understand very clearly the current intentions of the landowner. A meeting is due to be held between the Council, the landowner and the Jericho Wharf Trust in September. After this meeting, the Council will be in a better position to review its options.

The Trust welcomed Councillor Hollingsworth’s statement, and the prospect of the upcoming meeting with the landowner. This should have important consequences in finally paving the way for some kind of solution.

Why a public space

Four years later, in the revised design for the development, architects Stride Treglown put forward a different public space proposal that appeared wholly inadequate. JWT promptly commissioned an expert opinion from Noel Farrer,  an architect specialising in landscape and urban design and a former President of the Landscape Institute.

In his report, Farrer first illustrated how to assess whether a public space design could achieve its purpose, making a distinction between allocated space and usable space. Usable space was defined as space where a person could pause or sit without getting in the way of those moving through the square or accessing buildings. Farrer’s analysis of the 2016 design showed how the 870 square metres allocated to the square could be better understood as 625 square metres of usable space (below).

Farrer then looked at the new proposal for the square and found that while allocated space had been reduced by ‘only’ 26 per cent (from 870 to 645 square metres), usable space had reduced by a massive 75 per cent (from 625 to 160 square metres).

Not surprisingly, Farrer concluded that the new proposals failed to deliver on the planning policy as well as the community and Oxford’s aspiration for Jericho Wharf. Farrar’s full report is available here. Sadly neither developer nor council planners chose to engage with the report, nor to seek opinions from a Design Review Panel or from the planning authority’s own public realm specialists. However, the revised version of the scheme was also not built, even though it also received planning permission.

And what about the bridge?

Bad turned to worse when the Canal and River Trust (CRT) advised that they would not approve the latest bridge proposals from Stride Treglown. The developer interpreted this to mean that NO bridge onto the site would get approval, and that they should instead contribute to upgrading the existing bridge at Mount Place. Concerns that the obvious loss of footfall would turn the public space from a vibrant hub into a cul-de-sac were dismissed.
 
JWT challenged the developer’s interpretation of the CRT decision and, brought in an architect specialising in bridge design to work jointly with the JWT and the CRT on potential solutions. Five options were advised to be acceptable on navigational safety grounds. The full advice from CRT is available here. The JWT commissioned Matter Architects to do a feasibility study for a fixed bridge to connect the other side of the canal with the community buildings. They  concluded that this was indeed feasible and could be added to a modified version of the existing scheme.
 
Almost five more years have passed and largely gone to waste.  But hopefully this article shows that a vibrant public space and a new canal crossing are both crucial and viable in a successful development of the Wharf site.