Campaigner's Judicial Review challenge of Oxford's Core Strategy is rejected

The Core Strategy was adopted on 14 March 2011 and sets out the spatial planning framework for the development of Oxford up to 2026.It identifyies the scale and general locations of future development and policies.

Feeney challenged the Council's adoption of the Core Strategy on the grounds that there was no sufficient finding that the Core Strategy would not "adversely affect the integrity of" the Oxford Meadows, which are protected as a Special Area of Conservation under EU law.

However, the deputy High Court judge Mr. Stephen Morris QC found that Feeney's challenge was not well-founded. The judge dismissed Feeney's allegations and ruled that his case had "no real prospect of success".

Feeney had tried to argue that the Council's decision to approve the core strategy was unreasonable because it represents an irrevocable commitment to the 'Northern Gateway', which has not yet been assessed.

"I do not accept this argument," Morris QC said. It was held that the core strategy represents a "conditional commitment" to the project, which was a "permissible and lawful course of action".

Feeney also tried to argue that there had not been an "appropriate assessment" completed by the council and, even if so, it had not been properly recorded.

However, Morris QC disagreed with Feeney's allegations and found that "[Feeney] has no real prospect of establishing this part of the case".

Feeney's last allegation was that the Council and various other bodies involved in the decision to adopt the core strategy had acted in "bad faith". He asserted that the Councillors had acted in "bad faith" because they had an interest in the land.

Morris QC said that whilst he did not find the Council's evidence conclusive, Feeney "offered no evidence or support for his allegation".

The judge expressed his "gratitude" to Feeney for the way he presented his case in court without any assistance from lawyers, but went on to find in favour of the council.

Feeney had requested a protective costs order and so will not have to pay the council's legal costs.