Contentious plans approved for 104 homes outside Chipping Norton

The outline plans for up to 104 homes on land east of Burford Road and south of Charlbury Road was submitted by the developer Gleeson Land in April 2024.

The application was given the green light at the West Oxfordshire District Council planning meeting on Monday, April 14.

It had been deferred at the last planning meeting because the council wanted to ask Oxfordshire County Council highways why it had not sought funding for a north-south link road, and whether a contribution towards primary healthcare would be required.

Oxfordshire County Council highways said it is not seeking contributions towards building the proposed north-south link road because Roman remains were found in the area, which would cast doubt over whether it could be built.

It also said the traffic caused by the development would not be severe.

The NHS trust said it had no objection to the plans as long as the developer agreed to contribute £89,000 towards primary healthcare, which it agreed to do.

A total of 119 householders submitted objections to the development over concerns for wildlife, the increase in traffic, the risk of flooding, loss of green space, and existing infrastructure not coping with the new development.

One member of the public spoke against the application at the meeting.

She said: “I get that we need more housing in Chipping Norton, particularly social housing, but this ad hoc piecemeal development isn’t a solution.”

“This proposal is in the wrong part of town, without the infrastructure to support it, which will add significant strain to a creaking road and sewage system, and should be rejected.”

She added the development would be next to the Chipping Norton rifle and pistol club, that the loss of the proposed north-south link road would increase traffic to Chipping Norton, and that it would lead to the loss of good agricultural land.

Councillor Geoff Saul proposed the scheme for refusal, but his motion did not get enough votes in support to be carried.

The planning officers said that if the council rejected the scheme, and the developers successfully appealed against it, the district council would be put into special measures due to its track record of losing to appeals.

This would mean the planning inspectorate would make decisions on future planning applications in the district.

Mr Saul later asked to amend one of the conditions to mean that Thames Water would have to complete the sewage works in the area before the development commences, rather than before it is occupied.

The amended version of the application was passed.

Further details of the development would be submitted in a reserved matters application.