DOUBTS have been raised over whether there will be space for all groups in East Oxford Community Centre after a multi-million pound renovation.

Oxford City Council’s scrutiny committee will be asked to look at renovation plans for the Princes Street site next week after a £3.7m proposal was put together by local authority officers.

But Junie James, who runs ACKHI (African Caribbean Kultural Heritage Initiative) from the centre, said it seems unclear whether all of its tenants will be able to stay in it after work has taken place.

She said: “It’s difficult to understand because the city council is quite adamant it will provide accommodation of the groups – but it’s questionable."

She added she will be looking for temporary storage for resources which she has collected at the centre since ACKHI moved to it in 2006.

But she said being able to find new space is a ‘tall order’ because Oxford is so expensive and added that it was regrettable that student housing must be built on part of the community centre as to help pay for the upgrade.

She said: "Social housing is so needed in Oxford and people have to go out of [central] Oxford for accommodation – to Blackbird Leys, Greater Leys and beyond.

Campaigners have claimed up to 40 per cent of the centre's floor space will be lost – but the city council has said that figure is incorrect.

It said it will be reduced by eight per cent and that some groups will be accommodated elsewhere across the city.

City council spokesman, Tom Jennings, said: "Excluding East Oxford Games Hall because we intend to move users to other sports facilities nearby, the reduction in floor space is eight per cent.

"However, in practice we hope the new facility, because of its multi-use, partitionable and shareable spaces, will enable more community activities and groups in East Oxford."

As part of the scheme, the community centre’s old school building will be refurbished and a new two-storey building built nearby.

The Fusion Arts building will be demolished and will be replaced with another new two-storey building for community use, along with a new outdoor space.

The redevelopment will be partly funded through the sale of nearby East Oxford Games Hall and Film Oxford sites.

That will be topped up with a sale of a section of the existing East Oxford Community Centre site for student housing.

Early estimates were that these sales would have generated £1.6m, and the city council said it would contribute another £700,000.

But new estimates on the value of the land value mean that another £2.6m could be generated to pay for the scheme.

But even with the new income and the city council’s £700,000, there is still a £400,000 funding gap to be filled.

Oxford City Council’s Green Party group has said it wants the community centre to remain where it is and for proposed business units at another City Council-owned site on Cave Street to be relocated there. 

Proposed housing at the centre would then be sited on Cave Street in an effort to generate more income for the council. 

Green Party deputy leader Craig Simmons said: "The Green Party has never proposed moving the East Oxford Community Centre to Cave Street, or anywhere else.

"We want the Centre to continue to develop and thrive on the current location in Princes Street. It is the Labour-run council that is pushing ahead with the sell-off of part of the site, along with the Film Oxford building and East Oxford Games Hall.

"The Green Party has proposed an alternative which would preserve the East Oxford Community Centre site intact. This involves diverting money currently allocated for extending the small business units in Cave Street to build small business units on the EOCC site instead, thus avoiding the need to sell-off the Princes Street site.

"We propose using the Cave Street land, where the business units would have been built, for housing. The result would a better use of Council resources, retained community land and more affordable housing." 

NOTE: This article was amended at 5.10pm on Friday, November 3 after the Green Party's position was incorrectly stated.