A DRAFT study into Oxford’s Central Conservation Area has been blasted for being littered with errors, ‘incomplete’ and ‘unfit for purpose’.

The eight-week public consultation – an opening stage in the first review of the city’s historic centre in nearly 50 years - resulted in numerous criticisms of Oxford City Council’s approach.

Its document, on ‘one of the country’s most important conservation areas’, was labelled ‘difficult to use’ after the consultation shut on Friday.

Concerns were also raised about its accuracy and why the conservation area is yet to be given a physical location.

Oxford’s Civic Society and a residents' association were particularly critical of the 261-page document, which Alan Baxter Associates have helped the council to draft since April.

Civic Society President Sir Clive Booth said: “The lavishly illustrated report is incomplete, in that arguably the most important sections concerning the opportunities and threats and recommendations for future planning policy are missing. As a vehicle for consultation, it is unfortunately not fit for purpose.”

The appraisal aims to find out what city residents think is most important to be preserved, but could also ‘identify a site for redevelopment’ in the heart of Oxford.

Though not wholly negative, Sir Clive’s response continued: “It is puzzling that the geographical coverage of the Conservation Area - which should surely be the starting point for any appraisal - has not been discussed.”

He added that it was ‘disappointing’ that the Covered Market was ‘given such cursory attention’ and said the report tended to view the conservation area ‘through rose-tinted spectacles.’

The comments, outlined on behalf of his society, hailed St John Street Area Residents’ Association’s ‘excellent response’, which echoed concerns about defining a boundary and reading the draft.

It wrote: “Without action, Oxford will become like any other modern city with a few historic buildings. This would destroy the features making it attractive.

“Key sections [of the draft] have not yet been prepared… the maps are too small to be legible.

“[There has been] negligible engagement with the local community, in spite of such engagement being recommended [and] promises of involvement. We have a similar status to the general public.”

The organisation also listed 11 ‘examples’ errors, including how photographs labelled as Beaumont Street are in fact St John Street, and claimed there were ‘major omissions’ on the tourism, building sizes, traffic and other issues.

National legislation defines a conservation area as an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which makes it desirable to preserve or enhance.

Oxford Preservation Trust were more complimentary about the document, saying it recognised this was a draft and ‘considerable work’ needed doing for it to ‘useful’ in managing change.

It said the document was ‘well laid out and accessible’, but asked for more consideration of tourism, traffic issues and any effect on the city’s character.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, board member for planning, said: “The current document is a working draft representing a two-phased project. This first phase focused on what makes the area special.

“Some of the feedback refers to work that is scheduled to be covered in the second phase... on the opportunities, threats and management of the area in future.”

The council have said the next phase will deal with street analysis and a management plan.

Mr Hollingsworth said the boundary was not part of the appraisal but ‘may be considered in future.’