Banburyshire village residents are alarmed at 73-homes development plan on top-grade agricultural land

A special meeting of the parish council attracted over 50 villagers who shown the ‘stark reality’ of the plan and were urged to write to Cherwell District Council (CDC) to give their views on the application by developers L&Q Estates Ltd.

While some parish councillors thought the development may get pushed through whatever objections were made, a pre-application letter from the district council planning officer, Nathanael Stock, was not fully supportive of the scheme.

The plan asks for consent to build 73 homes in one-bed to five-bedded units, adjacent to The Bourne and stretching up the road towards the former Firs Garage. Access would be through an enhanced driveway servicing the current doctors’ surgery.

Most of the homes would be two-storeys high with some at 2.5 storeys and homes at the southern end at just 1.5 storeys because of the sensitive layout of the southern section.

There would be 26 ‘affordable’ homes of which 18 would be ‘affordable/social rent’ and eight as intermediate home ownership making 35 per cent of the total.

In its application L&Q Estates’ agent cited recent successful appeals in Hook Norton, Heyford, Bloxham and Chesterton to bolster their case.

The land is currently Grade 1 agricultural land which CDC’s planning expert, in his pre-application advice, said would be a loss.

In his letter last July, Mr Stock said: “Given its distance from Hook Norton's village centre the northern part of the site would not be well located to services and facilities, meaning future occupiers would have to travel for most services and would not have a realistic choice of travel.

"The proposals… do not find support from Policy Villages 2, and indeed would run contrary to the council's housing strategy. In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of open countryside and some grade one agricultural land, and the northern part of the estate is sensitive in landscape and visual terms.

"The 2018 housing and economic land availability assessment concluded that this part of the site was not suitable for residential development for landscape and visual reasons. The southern part of the site is sensitive in heritage terms, but may be acceptable in principle for a development of 15 to 20 dwellings.”

Mr Stock said weight would be given to the addition of homes and construction jobs, though these would be temporary.

"...It is considered the harm identified in this letter in relation to the proposal's policy conflict, its adverse landscape and visual effects, the development of greenfield land, the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and the relatively poor sustainability credentials for the northern part of the site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the proposal's benefits on balance, therefore, our view is that a future application for this quantum of development in this location would not be considered favourably.

"It may be that a smaller development of 15 to 20 dwellings on the southern part of the site may be considered more favourably in principle, albeit that the visual effects the loss of Greenfield land and grade one agricultural land would all need to be justified and may still present barriers to a positive outcome.”