Revealed: planning mistakes atthe heart of Oxford’s animal lab
Oxford University has come under fire for its handling of the animal research lab on South Parks Road, after it emerged that they failed to consult local police at the planning stage of the controversial development. An investigation by The Oxford Student has revealed that neither the university nor the city council consulted Thames Valley Police (TVP) at any stage during the lab’s planning process, despite official government advice recommending they do so.
The university insists that discussions with all relevant bodies took place, but documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the police were not asked for input. Oxford City Council has denied responsibility for the oversight, claiming that consultation with the police was a matter for the university.
The revelations have prompted a backlash from police, academics and university scientists, who believe the university is ‘deeply regretting’ its decision to build the lab in such a prominent location.
This newspaper has learnt:
That confusion over the purpose of the lab resulted in Oxford City Council underestimating the disruption it would cause in Oxford
There is ‘discomfort’ within the senior ranks of TVP that nobody sought their opinion on the lab’s location
Had police officers been consulted at the planning stage, it would have been suggested to the university that the lab could be built at a more isolated site away from the city centre to make the policing of it easier.
There is fear amongst senior policemen that future governments may refuse to foot the bill for the lab’s security, throwing the lab’s future into doubt.
Although neither the council nor the university were legally bound to consult police about the lab, a number of pieces of government legislation make it clear that it is advisable to seek the police’s opinion on developments that could have crime and disorder implications.
Government guidance stresses the importance of close cooperation between developers, the council and local police. Yet documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that no consultation took place, and the first point at which TVP were made aware of the lab’s construction was in 2004, six years after planning began.
Some figures within the police force are now questioning why the council and university chose not to include them in the planning process when it was inevitable the development would have serious law and order implications for central Oxford. The university began planning the development of the research centre in 1999 and in 2002 submitted an application for planning permission to the council.
On the application, the university described the building as a research facility and made no mention that animal testing would be carried out there. Officials within Oxford City Council have told this newspaper that had they been aware that animal testing would be conducted at the lab, they would have handled the consultation process differently, because the building was bound to attract protests and would therefore impact upon TVP.
However, based on the university’s planning application, they saw no reason to seek advice from the police. “We had no inclination that the building would have the effect it has had,” said one official. A spokesperson for the council claimed it was not their duty to have involved police in the consultation process, as the planning authority did not know exactly what the building was going to be used for. “Specific activity in the University building is not a planning matter.
It’s a matter for the university, in relation to the specific use of the building, to make contact with the other agencies like the police.” The council granted planning permission in February 2004 and work then began on the lab. By this point, Cambridge had already abandoned plans to construct its own primate research centre.
The lab is currently under construction
One of the reasons cited for the closure of the facility was the spiralling security costs of protecting it from animal rights militants. Within weeks, a coalition of anti-vivisection activists had been formed in Oxford and a wave of direct action against the university was launched. Extremists soon forced the building contractor to pull out of the project, stopping construction work for 17 months. Only then did the university formally bring the police on board.
In the Autumn of 2004, a specialist police unit within TVP was formed and given the name ‘Operation Rumble’. Operation Rumble seeks to combat animal rights extremists by providing high levels of visible policing as well as covert surveillance of activist groups. The consequences of the lab for local policing have been extensive and The Oxford Student understands that there is unease within TVP at both the position of the lab and the way in which the planning of it was handled.
Some figures within TVP believe that the lab’s location • on a main road in the city centre • has contributed unnecessarily to the level of disruption Oxford residents are currently facing, and that it may have been advisable to find a more isolated site for it. It is a view shared by some within Oxford University itself. One senior scientist, who wishes to remain anonymous, has suggested there is widespread discontent amongst the academic community over the lab’s location.
“Many people didn’t want a centralised animal facility because they felt it was a provocation to animal rights extremists, especially when a building of this type is placed on a main road,” he commented. Other academics have also condemned the university for the way in which it handled the consultation process for the lab.
One biology professor, who has cited the animal lab as an example of a “deterioration in decision-taking” within the university, described how users of previous facilities “did not learn that this particular solution [the construction of a centralised centre for laboratory animals] had been adopted until well after the decision was made.
In a memorandum submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, he attacked the university for ignoring warnings from university scientists that a centralised lab would provoke severe extremist activity.
“Given the very predictable response of the Animal Rights Lobby that building a dedicated animal facility would provoke, it is extraordinary that extensive prior consultation with animal users was deemed unnecessary… Warnings by various colleagues who were well acquainted with the practices of the Animal Rights movements seem to have gone unheeded,” he wrote in 2004. Councillors have also criticised the way the lab was developed.
“For obvious reasons, much of the planning process was very secretive,” said Matt Sellwood, a Green Councillor for Hollywell ward. “It’s now clear that aspects of it were handled badly and there should have been more consultation from the University and the City Council at an early stage.
A spokesperson for the university said: “The planning process for the biomedical research facility met fully all formal and procedural requirements and was concluded to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities. Discussions with the relevant bodies were held during the planning process. The university continues to liase regularly with the police and other pertinent organisations.” An official police spokesperson denied that TVP had problems with the way in which the lab was planned.
“The Force does have an issue with or opinion on the way this planning application was handled by either the university or the local authority,” she said. Since planning permission was granted for the lab, the government has rewritten its advice on planning and crime prevention, placing further emphasis on the need for developers and police to liase on major projects. Sources within the government believe that this sort of consultation could soon become a legal requirement.
27th Apr 2006