Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Preferred Spatial Options Paper

Click anywhere you see a yellow speech bubble with a question mark to make a comment or see what others have already said.

Summary Full Document

Summary

All Hide

Welcome to the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2043 Preferred Spatial Options consultation

Expand

Introduction

We are preparing a new Local Plan to guide how West Oxfordshire will grow and change over the next 15-20 years. This Preferred Spatial Options Paper consultation builds on the feedback from previous consultations. This is the stage where we set out where we think future growth could happen.

Read More Jump to Page

Progress to date

Local Plan consultations to date include:

Your Voice Counts (August 2022)
Your Place Your Plan (August 2023)
Your Plan for the Future – Preferred Policy Options (June 2025)
Your Plan for the Future – Preferred Spatial Options (this consultation)

Read More Jump to Page

The Local Plan Period

National Policy requires local plans to cover a period of at least 15 years from adoption. As the plan will likely be adopted in 2027, we are now proposing an end date of the plan of 31^st March 2043.

Read More Jump to Page

The Settlement Hierarchy

As a result of previous consultation feedback, we have added a ‘Tier 5’ grouping of settlements. The hierarchy now distinguishes between larger villages, with goods and services which can meet everyday needs, and medium sized villages that are relatively less sustainable in terms of communities being able to access their day-to-day needs.

Read More Jump to Page

The Spatial Strategy

The Spatial Strategy sets out the expected pattern of growth over the period of the Local Plan. Feedback that we received from the Preferred Policy Options Paper consultation highlighted concerns that development scales could double the size of villages, eroding community character and overwhelming infrastructure.

In response to the concerns raised, it is proposed that the new Local Plan will now define four different scales of residential development which align closely with the revised settlement hierarchy.

Read More Jump to Page

Meeting identified development needs

With the proposed extension of the Local Plan to 2043, the revised housing need is 16,290 homes. This will be met from a combination of existing residential commitments (sites which already have planning permission), existing Local Plan allocations revised where necessary, a windfall allowance and new site allocations.

Economic needs will also be met through a combination of existing permissions and site allocations.

Although the environmental qualities of West Oxfordshire will not have a bearing on calculating housing and economic needs for the district (the district council intends to meet its development requirements in full), it will have a strong influence on how development is distributed in the district. The Local Plan also promotes a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to align growth and infrastructure.

Read More Jump to Page

Strategic Spatial Options

‘Strategic’ spatial options have the potential to contribute towards the overall planned supply of 18,000 homes and up to 25 ha of employment space. For residential development, strategic sites are those that can accommodate more than 300 homes.

The adopted Local Plan 2031 identifies five ‘strategic’ sites capable of delivering 300 or more homes. Except for the East Witney SDA (which has outline planning permission and will be treated as an existing commitment), the other sites were allocated in 2018 and have yet to come forward. Therefore, we consider that it would be appropriate to refresh and update these existing allocations as part of the new Local Plan 2043.

We have identified a further eleven preferred areas which we think would be suitable for new strategic development.

Read More Jump to Page

Other Spatial Options

For residential development, in accordance with the classification outlined earlier in section 5, other spatial options are considered to be medium and large scale and capable of accommodating between 11 and 299 homes.

In this section we focus on other spatial options to meet the housing and economic development requirements of the Local Plan.

Read More Jump to Page

Next Steps

Consultation on the Preferred Spatial Options paper is due to take place for a 7-week period between November and December 2025.

We welcome your views on the sites that we have suggested for development.

Following consultation, all responses will be given due consideration as the Council undertakes further evidence gathering and analysis in preparation for the Regulation 19, Draft Local Plan, which will be published and subject to further consultation in spring 2026.

Read More Jump to Page

Comments

Cancel

Add comment

Mr & Mrs J R Bowtell 1 Dec 10 2025 at 5:49PM on page 59

I disagree with the proposed approach

Unequal Distribution of Development
The Local Plan does not demonstrate a fair and balanced distribution of development across the West Oxfordshire District. Over 46% of all proposed development is concentrated within the Parish of Brize Norton, which is disproportionate and unsustainable. Brize Norton is designated as a village under the Local Plan, intended for limited development that respects local character. Current growth far exceeds this intent. Adding more homes would irreparably harm the village’s identity, infrastructure, and community vitality. Brize Norton has already delivered far beyond reasonable expectations, tripling in size during the Local Plan period. Further development disregards cumulative impacts and places an unfair burden on the community.

Traffic Impact Along the A40 Corridor
Allocating a significant proportion of housing development along the A40 corridor—on top of previously approved large-scale developments—could increase traffic flow by over 20,000 vehicles per day. The suggestion that a railway link alone will resolve this issue is unrealistic.

Preservation of Ancient Rights of Way
There appears to be insufficient consideration for protecting historic rights of way. Initial proposals for one development even intersect an ancient drove route traditionally used for moving livestock. Once

Development Below the 110-Meter Contour
Development below the 110-meter contour is acceptable only if strictly enforced and absolutely necessary. Early developer proposals show little regard for this requirement. Farmland is one of the UK’s most valuable assets—providing food security, supporting biodiversity, and maintaining the rural character that defines our countryside. Building on agricultural land not only erodes these benefits but also accelerates habitat loss, increases flood risk, and undermines efforts to reduce carbon emissions. With thousands of brownfield sites available for regeneration, prioritising farmland for housing is short-sighted and unsustainable. Protecting farmland means safeguarding our future—once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Development should focus on existing urban areas, not the green fields that feed and sustain us.

Environmental Protection and Buffer Zones
Adequate buffer zones are essential—not only to safeguard existing residential/farming areas but also to protect local wildlife, including hares, fallow deer, and more rarer bird species such as barn owls, lapwings, lesser redpoll, Willowtit, Lesser spotted woodpecker. Existing and newly planted woodlands play a vital role in supporting biodiversity and reducing carbon footprint, and these efforts must be preserved. Consideration to be given to adjacent land owners of a 200m green buffer/tree shelter belt. Offset biodiversity net gains through tree planting and other environmental measures. Prioritise creation of recreational areas and green spaces that complement rural character.

Infrastructure & Services Under Strain
Traffic: No impact assessment for Station Road, which handles 6,000 peak-hour vehicles—higher than many ‘A’ roads. Additional traffic will worsen congestion and safety risks. Burford Road lacks upgrades for heavy construction traffic and already serves as a diversion route during A40 incidents. Hazardous junctions remain unresolved.
Water: Thames Water confirmed insufficient funds for remedial works; only flow meters proposed. Wastewater relies on Brize Norton SPS, not disclosed by the developer.
Public Services: NHS facilities (Broadshires Health Centre) and local schools are at capacity. Burford Secondary is oversubscribed, disadvantaging Brize Norton children.

Mr & Mrs J R Bowtell Dec 10 2025 at 5:41PM on page 58

I disagree with the proposed approach

Unequal Distribution of Development
The Local Plan does not demonstrate a fair and balanced distribution of development across the West Oxfordshire District. Over 46% of all proposed development is concentrated within the Parish of Brize Norton, which is disproportionate and unsustainable. Brize Norton is designated as a village under the Local Plan, intended for limited development that respects local character. Current growth far exceeds this intent. Adding more homes would irreparably harm the village’s identity, infrastructure, and community vitality. Brize Norton has already delivered far beyond reasonable expectations, tripling in size during the Local Plan period. Further development disregards cumulative impacts and places an unfair burden on the community.

Traffic Impact Along the A40 Corridor
Allocating a significant proportion of housing development along the A40 corridor—on top of previously approved large-scale developments—could increase traffic flow by over 20,000 vehicles per day. The suggestion that a railway link alone will resolve this issue is unrealistic.

Preservation of Ancient Rights of Way
There appears to be insufficient consideration for protecting historic rights of way. Initial proposals for one development even intersect an ancient drove road traditionally used for moving livestock.

Development Below the 110-Meter Contour
Development below the 110-meter contour is acceptable only if strictly enforced and absolutely necessary. Early developer proposals show little regard for this requirement. Farmland is one of the UK’s most valuable assets—providing food security, supporting biodiversity, and maintaining the rural character that defines our countryside. Building on agricultural land not only erodes these benefits but also accelerates habitat loss, increases flood risk, and undermines efforts to reduce carbon emissions. With thousands of brownfield sites available for regeneration, prioritising farmland for housing is short-sighted and unsustainable. Protecting farmland means safeguarding our future—once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Development should focus on existing urban areas, not the green fields that feed and sustain us.

Environmental Protection and Buffer Zones
Adequate buffer zones are essential—not only to safeguard existing residential/farming areas but also to protect local wildlife, including hares, fallow deer, and more rarer bird species such as barn owls, lapwings, lesser redpoll, Willowtit, Lesser spotted woodpecker. Existing and newly planted woodlands play a vital role in supporting biodiversity and reducing carbon footprint, and these efforts must be preserved. Consideration to be given to adjacent land owners of a 200m green buffer/tree shelter belt. Offset biodiversity net gains through tree planting and other environmental measures. Prioritise creation of recreational areas and green spaces that complement rural character.

Infrastructure & Services Under Strain
Traffic: No impact assessment for Station Road, which handles 6,000 peak-hour vehicles—higher than many ‘A’ roads. Additional traffic will worsen congestion and safety risks. Burford Road lacks upgrades for heavy construction traffic and already serves as a diversion route during A40 incidents. Hazardous junctions remain unresolved.
Water: Thames Water confirmed insufficient funds for remedial works; only flow meters proposed. Wastewater relies on Brize Norton SPS, not disclosed by the developer.
Public Services: NHS facilities (Broadshires Health Centre) and local schools are at capacity. Burford Secondary is oversubscribed, disadvantaging Brize Norton children.

Michael Pawley Dec 10 2025 at 5:12PM on page 75

I disagree with the proposed approach

1. Serious Flooding
The fields in the plan are a natural flood storage area for the Evenlode river and nearby streams. They are regularly flooded (yearly). Changing the land use or building on it would move water towards Bledington, where residents already experience repeated annual flooding.

2. Poor Sewage Capacity
The Bledington & Kingham treatment works are already over-capacity and sewage discharges into the Evenlode are very frequent. Extra housing would worsen this problem that affects water quality across the whole catchment area.

3. Poor Road Access
The only access to the site is through very narrow B roads through Kingham/Churchill/Lyneham in one direction and Bledington on the other. The Bledington Evenlode bridge on the bridge 400metres from the development site already has a size restriction because it is very weak. The roads are very narrow, parking is limited and further vehicle movements would increase safety risks.

4. Inappropriate Location within the Cotswold National Landscape
The site sits on the edge of the Gloucestershire border within a nationally protected landscape. Development here would impact communities and countryside that are not served by this location.

5. Settlement pattern and landscape impact
The land is approximately a mile from the nearest village. Access would have to be by personal car, increasing traffic load on small roads. Any development would create an isolated estate with no link to established communities. It would also erode the rural setting that separates Churchill, Kingham and Bledington.

6. Detrimental Impact on breeding otters adjacent to this site.
Any development would impact this important mammal species' survival rates.

Alan Weaver Dec 10 2025 at 3:22PM on page 71

I disagree with the proposed approach

The proposed development could only be accessed through the residential streets of Jeffersons Piece, Kendal Piece, The Green, Elm Crescent, Chartwell Drive and Ditchley Road.

Each street is narrow, and with residents parking their cars on streets outside their houses, it means these streets are, for the most part, already only suitable for single-lane traffic.

If this development went ahead these streets would not be able to cope with increased road traffic, either during construction work or day-to-day afterwards.

This development would cause the local streets to be unsafe. Nobody wants any of our residents to be killed or injured in a road traffic accident.

South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council 3 Dec 10 2025 at 1:53PM on page 34

I would like to make a general comment

We do have concerns about land being set aside along the A40 transport corridor and would like to draw your attention to the fact that a large part of this area falls under our
Neighborhood Plane and is adjacent to our intended Conservation Area. We hope that if these plans were to progress that we are fully consulted.

South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council 2 Dec 10 2025 at 1:50PM on page 11

I agree with the proposed approach

We agree that South Leigh and High Cogges remain Tier 5 as we don’t have the infrastructure to support development in the village.

South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council 1 Dec 10 2025 at 1:49PM on page 11

I agree with the proposed approach

We approve of the hierarchical approach whereby most of the new developments are placed in the vicinity of where there are already established services and infrastructure to
support this.
We are pleased to see that there are rural areas for residents to enjoy that will be accessible with minimal development.

South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council Dec 10 2025 at 1:47PM on page 8

I agree with the proposed approach

We approve of the extension of the time

Angela Piesse Dec 10 2025 at 1:44PM on page 70

I disagree with the proposed approach

Angela Piesse adds her vote to oppose the proposed building in Burford

Katie Crang Dec 10 2025 at 1:41PM on page 70

I disagree with the proposed approach

I am writing in response to the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2043 consultation, specifically consultation question 32 – Area N. I wish to register my strong objection to the
proposal to develop this site.
I refer to consultation question 32 – Area N of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2043. I oppose this proposal as a development site for the following reasons:
1. Significant Impact on the Character of Burford
Burford is a historic market town with a unique charm and heritage that draws visitors from all over the country. The proposed development would place a modern, high-density
estate on the edge of a landscape that has remained largely unchanged for generations.
This would materially alter the visual setting of the town and diminish the character that makes Burford so special.
2. Increased Traffic and Road Safety Concerns
Burford already experiences heavy congestion, particularly on the A40 and through the town centre. Adding further housing will inevitably increase traffic flow through an area
that is already under strain. The roads surrounding Area N are not designed for significant additional capacity, raising safety concerns for local residents, pedestrians, and school
children.
3. Pressure on Local Services and Infrastructure
Essential services in Burford – including GP practices, schools, parking, and utilities – are already stretched. The proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate how these services will
be expanded to cope with the extra demand. Without guaranteed and funded improvements, this development risks overwhelming the local infrastructure.
4. Environmental and Landscape Impact
Area N borders sensitive landscape and wildlife areas that contribute to both the ecological richness of the region and the wellbeing of local people. Development would cause habitat disruption, loss of green space, and irreversible impact on natural surroundings that cannot simply be “replaced” elsewhere.
5. Inconsistency with Sustainable and Sensitive Development Principles
The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises sustainable growth, protection of heritage settings, and careful consideration of rural landscapes. Developing Area N does not align with these principles and fails to respect the long-term environmental and cultural value of Burford.
For these reasons, I urge West Oxfordshire District Council to remove Area N from consideration as a development site in the Local Plan 2043.
Thank you for acknowledging my objection. I would appreciate confirmation that my comments have been formally recorded as part of this consultation.

Rosie Pearson 1 Dec 10 2025 at 11:14AM on page 57

I disagree with the proposed approach

Of all of the areas within Brize Norton parish that are proposed in this document, this seems to me the worst, in terms of flooding, views from Kilkenny Lane country park and the fact that it interferes with the rail corridor. I am glad that the numbers suggested here are far lower than those currently being proposed, through several phases, by the developer. If these numbers can be kept down, could the development, if it goes ahead, be pulled back from the edge of the park? There is a real sense of escape from the busyness of life in KLCP. If there were busy commuter bike lanes this would be lost.

Tim Knight Dec 10 2025 at 9:52AM on page 80

I disagree with the proposed approach

I have read all the previous comments on this proposal. There are two common threads through them all: they are all rational and well considered; and yet they are universal in opposing the proposal, in each case for unarguable reasons.

I will not here repeat everything that has been said. I agree with it all 100%.

But I will repeat what I said to your people at the consultation evening on 10 November. I have lived in the village for over 10 years. The sewage and storm water problems were well known when I arrived and have recurred regularly since. This is already hugely overdue for a radical solution. Even to consider more development in the village before this is done, and completed to everyone's satisfaction, would be outrageous. That is especially true of area U, where development would interfere with, and exacerbate the problems of, the current flood reduction system (if it can be graced with that description!). Tackley should be deleted from your consultation, and only added to any future proposal when we have a village proven to be flood-proof and sewage-free. Otherwise development proposals will be progressed and implemented, subject to flood/sewage conditions which are likely to be ignored, flouted and not enforced. The current intolerable situation will only be worse ... much worse.

Eldridge Dec 10 2025 at 5:09AM on page 82

I disagree with the proposed approach

Witney is a growing town with a busy community to support. There is limited access to parking in the town centre that’s close proximity to the hospital that is free to use for members of the public visiting and those that support and work in the community. The last part of the proposal suggests that the area where the police station is situated is ideal for real estate. If you decide that having a police station in Witney is not important, then please understand that you have response officers, neighbourhood policing team, Domestic Abuse and CCTV services based here that safeguard the town from violent crime, shoplifting, local ASB, but are there to support all local communities and businesses 24/7. If the goal is to ‘use the space’, please consider where the local police station is going to be situated from now on. Does this mean that Witney Fire station is going to close too as it’s under used space, and also the hospital as it’s more important for housing and development, than essential emergency services. Lastly by getting rid of the Witney station, you are leaving other areas like Chipping Norton, Woodstock, Shipton, Carterton without police response for any incident, with the nearest crews having to respond from Bicester, Oxford, Banbury, Wantage or Abingdon. This is not safe for the community.

Maria Campbell Dec 9 2025 at 10:00PM on page 71

I disagree with the proposed approach

I write to disagree with the proposal. I am disappointed to have to do so again - the same proposal was previously rejected. The objections remain the same and are clearly set out above. We see the consequences of increased traffic from our vantage point - cars swing round the corner from Ditchley Road into Chartwell Drive morning, noon and night. The community character of The Green and surrounding roads would be negatively affected by increased traffic and would put children, pets, walkers, other cars and so on at risk or in danger. A more sensible access solution would be through Kearsey Court if the housing is unavoidable; however, as also pointed out, services and amenities are at full stretch in Charlbury. As residents, we have to abide by strict planning regulations living as we do in a conservation area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. If we have to accept limitations on what we can and can't do, then so should housing developers.

Alan Wilson Dec 9 2025 at 9:43PM on page 72

I disagree with the proposed approach

This does not seem likely to be an appropriate area for house-building, most importantly because of the impact on road safety. The section of the Fawler Road (B4022) adjacent to the site is not a safe one, with blind corners in both directions. We have lived at one end of this stretch of road since 1997. The previous occupants warned us about the number of accidents that occurred almost every year, and matters have not improved since then. The volume of traffic has greatly increased, and vehicles regularly go off the road – only last month the telegraph pole at the bottom of our drive was completely broken it two. Luckily, there have been few fatalities (as far as I know), so the number of incidents reported is probably low. But the sounds of vehicles skidding and horn-blowing are (almost literally) an everyday occurrence, as oncoming vehicles can be in the middle of the road.

If the current entrance to the field (constructed 2-3 years ago, without planning permission as I understand it) is retained, I would expect the main danger to be that vehicles joining Fawler Road will not be seen by vehicles leaving Charlbury, and will not themselves be able to see those vehicles in time to be able to turn out safely. If the entrance is moved down towards the Fawler end of the field then the biggest danger is likely to be that vehicles coming from the Fawler direction will not see cars waiting to turn into the site in time to stop safely.

Some of these safety concerns were raised by us and by the Charlbury Town Council in the context of a recent planning application to build a huge barn in this field, and do not appear to have been solved. There would inevitably be far more traffic serving a development of 40 houses than a single barn, however absurdly large that barn might be.

One other aspect of road safety to bear in mind is that there is no pavement along Fawler Road to allow any residents of a new housing estate to safely walk into the town. There is also a steep bank on the side of the road facing the traffic, so pedestrians have to cross over and walk in the road on the other side with their back to the traffic where at least there is some scope to get off the road when traffic comes. We have walked along this road many, many times over the years to get to the town or the railway station and never enjoyed it, especially in recent years as traffic volumes have increased. It is totally unsuitable for prams, young children or dog walkers.

Matthew Lee Dec 9 2025 at 6:29PM on page 78

I disagree with the proposed approach

The opening para of this section about Standlake 8.53 is clearly in error. The proposal of 200 homes in a tier 3 Large Village is NOT consistent with the revised planning policy laid out in detail on p13-16 of this document. The Standlake proposal is mistaken even in the Local Plan's own terms and should be revised down by 75 - 80%, to 20% of the proposed scale. A tier 3 Large Village should not be subject to a development larger than 50 homes, according to the policy laid out in this Local Plan.
Standlake is definitely not a tier 2 community, and within tier 3 it has many issues - especially poor public transport, sewage failures, and flood risk - that tend to suggest it should be at the lower end in its development allocation as a tier 3 community.
Nothing in paras 8.53 to 8.58 makes any sort of adequate case to exceed its defined allocation of medium development (no more than 50).
To be allocated 3x or 4x more homes than tier 2 communities like Burford or Charlbury, when the allocation is non-strategic is evidently a nonsense.

The specific site is unattractive for noise (from drag racing circuit) and infrastructure reasons, as many others at today's village hall meeting will have pointed out. If allocated anything at all in the Local Plan, Standlake should contribute perhaps 40 homes to growth in West Oxfordshire.
Please be consistent with your own proposed policy guidelines.

Alastair McKay Dec 9 2025 at 6:12PM on page 78

I disagree with the proposed approach

The proposed addition of up to 200 homes at this location (Area T) is illogical in the extreme. The site is not associated with existing development in the village, and to develop on the NorthEast side of Martine Lane would effectively create a settlement isolated from the centre of the village, the hub of the community. Services in the village are already extremely limited, as follows:
- water and sewage - under incredible strain, and any assurance from Thames Water cannot surely be taken with any seriously, given their catastrophic financial situation - and the sewage system in the village is already under intolerable stress
- the village school has no capacity, with some children needing to be transported to schools in other villages and towns
- one small village shop - admittedly the provision of a post office is useful, but practically the shop does not prevent the need to travel to Witney or elsewhere for groceries
- one pub, since The Bell was allowed to be converted to a dwelling
- no street lighting, and no mains gas. Electricity supply, whilst better than a few years ago is still unstable, with much of the supply network above ground, and therefore vulnerable to weather
- the proposed development site is productive farmland - maybe only a small contribution, but we must retain productive farmland for food security
- flood risk - the whole area is under the EA flood risk classification

An additional issue is the classification of Standlake as a "Large Village" - using population only for this classification is one-dimensional, and does not take into account local circumstances or conditions. I understand the need for additional houses, but these must be in suitable locations that will enhance and constructively develop rather than destroy the village environments that we all enjoy.

S Russell Dec 9 2025 at 5:23PM on page 11

I would like to make a general comment

Creating 5 tiers is a better approach. It is appropriate that Ascott-under-Wychwood is classified as a medium village (tier 4). It has limited facilities and inadequate public transport.
The small community shop is run by volunteers and opening hours are limited. The post office out-reach service is infrequent and unreliable. The state primary and secondary schools are several miles away, as are the doctors, dentists, etc. There are very few employment opportunities in Ascott-under-Wychwood. Villagers and visitors are reliant on cars. The roads are narrow country lanes and when flooding occurs (throughout the year) Ascott is cut-off and only accessible by one lane. The village’s sewerage system is antiquated and already overloaded.
Placing Ascott-under-Wychwood in tier 4 is welcome; however, every new house would impact the fragile balance in this historic village, plus there is the threat of stealth development (a series of several small housing sites, close by, eventually joining) and therefore unsustainable accumulative growth over the years which the village infrastructure, character and rural setting cannot cope with.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:31PM on page 82

I would like to make a general comment

The potential for the development and regeneration of this area should be considered. Brown sites should be utilised wherever possible. Planning must take into account wider issues for the town such as parking, existing services sited in the area and overall image for people approaching the town from that direction.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:22PM on page 78

I would like to make a general comment

This site is well related to an existing relatively modern development and should be considered for a non strategic development. However planning must take into consideration waste water and flooding issues.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:15PM on page 73

I agree with the proposed approach

A logical extension to the village.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:14PM on page 68

I agree with the proposed approach

well contained within the existing built up area.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:12PM on page 68

I agree with the proposed approach

It relates well to the existing built up area and would not impact on the historic centre.

Robert Fodder Dec 9 2025 at 2:11PM on page 65

I disagree with the proposed approach

Further to my previous comment, the provision for early years childcare and education is lacking. The local nursery was closed when we moved in 5 years ago, despite the increase in housing developments. What is to say that more local childcare and educational establishments will not close when more developments are built? We need to focus on how to improve provisions before focusing on new developments. At the moment, these new developments have considerable numbers of young families, people move to housing to create families, those babies will be moving to schools in the coming years. We already have to put in for places over a year in advance, this shouldn't be the case. I take my 2 year old to nursery 40 minutes away, so she is underrepresenting the true need for childcare in the area. we put in for a place at a local nursery on lower main road and never heard back. I am sure there are many other families in similar situations, all of this extra travel creates undue strain on infrastructure - improve the infrastructure first to aid future developments.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:09PM on page 66

I agree with the proposed approach

It should be updated to reflect anticipated site capacity.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:08PM on page 66

I agree with the proposed approach

It would seem sensible.

Robert Fodder Dec 9 2025 at 2:03PM on page 65

I disagree with the proposed approach

Reasons summarised below:
- Water and sewage infrastructure is already struggling, we don't want an environmental disaster on our doorstep

- Struggling rail system results in squashed and standing only space to go towards London, often not the correct number of carriages in service
- The train station must improve, waiting areas are non-existent for the number of passengers. There must be two lines reinstated, there must be more frequent trains, there must be a larger car park to stop people trying to park on the road in Hanborough Park, there should be an improvement to safety over the bridge the path is exceedingly narrow and close to the road (new overpass from Hanborough Park?)

- Struggling road system during peak times and during roadworks (trailbacks for miles and hours), which will be made worse with more pressure on this system without any amelioration
- Flooding issues on A4095 and lower main road causing intense traffic, exacerbated by more tarmac being used and pushing flooding issues on to the struggling roads. Lower main road towards A40, and A4095 in two places.
- The A4095 is a main road to Witney from many areas, often a way of avoiding A40, this needs to be considered as it will only increase traffic as the population in surrounding areas increases (not just Hanborough developments)

- Long Hanborough is relatively small, how is it a tier 2 settlement with so few shops? The GP/pharmacy is impossible to park in at peak times and it is disingenuous to think that cycling or a bus is relevant as it adds considerable time to an appointment. Suggesting that there is more capacity to this limited site (Hanborough) is wrong.

- A much smaller development must be considered and it must not connect to lower main road, it must come with improvements to the station and rail provisions (number of train, carriages, waiting areas, parking) with a view to future developments too), it must protect the ancient woodland and green corridors, it must come with investment in other infrastructure (additional shops, better road infrastructure, more frequent buses than one per hour)

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 2:02PM on page 61

I disagree with the proposed approach

I strongly object to any development on Area I (Alvescot Downs).
The Shill Brook is a natural buffer to urban sprawl from Carterton and is a Conservation Target Area.
This area is not well related to Carterton, it would be difficult to integrate into the town. Any development here would essentially be a stand alone community with poor connectivity. It is not well served by public transport. Increased car usage would put further pressure on minor local roads and there is little viable potential for links to primary road networks.
Alvescot Downs was previously designated as an Area of High Landscape Value. A large area of undulating, open farm land unaffected by urban influences. From the top of the Downs there are uninterrupted views to the White Horse Hills.
It is food producing agricultural land, the Local Plan 2031 states the need to protect home food production.
Alvescot Downs is home to five red listed bird species, three of which (skylarks, Corn Buntings and Yellowhammers) are cited as priority species in your Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Whilst Fieldfares are noted as requiring targeted recovery action and Greenfinches are identified as needing special action to to support population in the LNRS. The Downs are home to Brown Hares, considered a priority species in the LNRS. There are active Badger setts on the Downs. The Downs form part of a green corridor.
I would suggest Alvescot Downs be considered as a non-designated heritage asset.
The Local Plan 2031 states "Major development in this location would be poorly related to the town and have harmful landscape impact".
The Local Plan Preferred Spatial Options Consultation 2025 comments that this area is disjointed from the built up area of Carterton and that "development to the west of the Shill Brook will result in landscape and visual harm to the wider landscape".
Therefore I would suggest this area is not suitable for strategic scale development.
I heartily agree with the comments made by Paul, Jim, Michael, David, Justine, Adrian, Paul 5 and Alvescot Parish Council.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 1:11PM on page 60

I agree with the proposed approach

Development in this area would deliver a substantial contribution towards housing needs.
If carefully planned it has the potential to create a vibrant new community. It is well related to the proposed employment development in Area G and to the existing industrial estate.
It is possible to create transport links without impact on Brize Norton village. New links to the A40 and other primary roads are more viable than any development to the west of Carterton.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 1:02PM on page 59

I agree with the proposed approach

This comment relates to Area G.
This is a suitable site for the development of employment opportunities. It has proximity to RAF Brize Norton and the potential residential developments of Areas F and/or H.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 12:35PM on page 58

I agree with the proposed approach

This site offers the opportunity to deliver a substantial contribution to housing needs. If carefully planned it has the potential to provide a vibrant new community.
It relates well to existing bus services.
It would relate well to the employment area proposed for Area G.
Provision of a link to the A40 and other primary roads would be more achievable than any development to the west of Carterton.

David 1 Dec 9 2025 at 12:31PM on page 59

I disagree with the proposed approach

Unequal Distribution of Development
The Local Plan does not demonstrate a fair and balanced distribution of development across the West Oxfordshire District. Over 46% of all proposed development is concentrated within the Parish of Brize Norton, which is disproportionate and unsustainable. Brize Norton is designated as a village under the Local Plan, intended for limited development that respects local character. Current growth far exceeds this intent. Adding more homes would irreparably harm the village’s identity, infrastructure, and community vitality. Brize Norton has already delivered far beyond reasonable expectations, tripling in size during the Local Plan period. Further development disregards cumulative impacts and places an unfair burden on the community.

Traffic Impact Along the A40 Corridor
Allocating a significant proportion of housing development along the A40 corridor—on top of previously approved large-scale developments—could increase traffic flow by over 20,000 vehicles per day. The suggestion that a railway link alone will resolve this issue is unrealistic.

Preservation of Ancient Rights of Way
There appears to be insufficient consideration for protecting historic rights of way. Initial proposals for one development even intersect an ancient drove route traditionally used for moving livestock.

Development Below the 110-Metre Contour
Development below the 110-metre contour is acceptable only if strictly enforced and absolutely necessary. Early developer proposals show little regard for this requirement. Farmland is one of the UK’s most valuable assets—providing food security, supporting biodiversity, and maintaining the rural character that defines our countryside. Building on agricultural land not only erodes these benefits but also accelerates habitat loss, increases flood risk, and undermines efforts to reduce carbon emissions. With thousands of brownfield sites available for regeneration, prioritising farmland for housing is short-sighted and unsustainable. Protecting farmland means safeguarding our future—once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Development should focus on existing urban areas, not the green fields that feed and sustain us.

Environmental Protection and Buffer Zones
Adequate buffer zones are essential—not only to safeguard existing residential/farming areas but also to protect local wildlife, including hares, fallow deer, and more rarer bird species such as barn owls, lapwings, lesser redpoll, Lesser spotted woodpecker. Existing and newly planted woodlands play a vital role in supporting biodiversity and reducing carbon footprint, and these efforts must be preserved. Consideration to be given to adjacent land owners of a 200m green buffer/tree shelter belt. Offset biodiversity net gains through tree planting and other environmental measures. Prioritise creation of recreational areas and green spaces that complement rural character.

Infrastructure & Services Under Strain
• Traffic: No impact assessment for Station Road, which handles 6,000 peak-hour vehicles—higher than many ‘A’ roads. Additional traffic will worsen congestion and safety risks. Burford Road lacks upgrades for heavy construction traffic and already serves as a diversion route during A40 incidents. Hazardous junctions remain unresolved.
• Water: Thames Water confirmed insufficient funds for remedial works; only flow meters proposed. Wastewater relies on Brize Norton SPS, not disclosed by the developer.
• Public Services: NHS facilities (Broadshires Health Centre) and local schools are at capacity. Burford Secondary is oversubscribed, disadvantaging Brize Norton children.

David 1 Dec 9 2025 at 12:30PM on page 58

I disagree with the proposed approach

Unequal Distribution of Development
The Local Plan does not demonstrate a fair and balanced distribution of development across the West Oxfordshire District. Over 46% of all proposed development is concentrated within the Parish of Brize Norton, which is disproportionate and unsustainable. Brize Norton is designated as a village under the Local Plan, intended for limited development that respects local character. Current growth far exceeds this intent. Adding more homes would irreparably harm the village’s identity, infrastructure, and community vitality. Brize Norton has already delivered far beyond reasonable expectations, tripling in size during the Local Plan period. Further development disregards cumulative impacts and places an unfair burden on the community.

Traffic Impact Along the A40 Corridor
Allocating a significant proportion of housing development along the A40 corridor—on top of previously approved large-scale developments—could increase traffic flow by over 20,000 vehicles per day. The suggestion that a railway link alone will resolve this issue is unrealistic.

Preservation of Ancient Rights of Way
There appears to be insufficient consideration for protecting historic rights of way. Initial proposals for one development even intersect an ancient drove route traditionally used for moving livestock.

Development Below the 110-Metre Contour
Development below the 110-metre contour is acceptable only if strictly enforced and absolutely necessary. Early developer proposals show little regard for this requirement. Farmland is one of the UK’s most valuable assets—providing food security, supporting biodiversity, and maintaining the rural character that defines our countryside. Building on agricultural land not only erodes these benefits but also accelerates habitat loss, increases flood risk, and undermines efforts to reduce carbon emissions. With thousands of brownfield sites available for regeneration, prioritising farmland for housing is short-sighted and unsustainable. Protecting farmland means safeguarding our future—once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Development should focus on existing urban areas, not the green fields that feed and sustain us.

Environmental Protection and Buffer Zones
Adequate buffer zones are essential—not only to safeguard existing residential/farming areas but also to protect local wildlife, including hares, fallow deer, and more rarer bird species such as barn owls, lapwings, lesser redpoll, Lesser spotted woodpecker. Existing and newly planted woodlands play a vital role in supporting biodiversity and reducing carbon footprint, and these efforts must be preserved. Consideration to be given to adjacent land owners of a 200m green buffer/tree shelter belt. Offset biodiversity net gains through tree planting and other environmental measures. Prioritise creation of recreational areas and green spaces that complement rural character.

Infrastructure & Services Under Strain
• Traffic: No impact assessment for Station Road, which handles 6,000 peak-hour vehicles—higher than many ‘A’ roads. Additional traffic will worsen congestion and safety risks. Burford Road lacks upgrades for heavy construction traffic and already serves as a diversion route during A40 incidents. Hazardous junctions remain unresolved.
• Water: Thames Water confirmed insufficient funds for remedial works; only flow meters proposed. Wastewater relies on Brize Norton SPS, not disclosed by the developer.
• Public Services: NHS facilities (Broadshires Health Centre) and local schools are at capacity. Burford Secondary is oversubscribed, disadvantaging Brize Norton children.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 12:23PM on page 57

I agree with the proposed approach

I agree this is a suitable location for strategic scale development.
It offers the opportunity to provide the scale development of a community subject to local environmental constraints and the establishment of transport links to Carterton.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 12:13PM on page 55

I agree with the proposed approach

It is well related to existing development and has good connectivity to Witney.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 12:11PM on page 54

I disagree with the proposed approach

It does not have good connectivity with Witney.
It is a further expansion towards the village of Ducklington.
Flooding potential and odour from the sewage treatment works are constraints on the desirability of homes in this location.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 12:01PM on page 53

I agree with the proposed approach

It is well related to existing employment areas.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:58AM on page 52

I would like to make a general comment

Basically I agree with the proposed approach. It is well related to existing development and has connectivity to Witney. Of course any development must take into account the local landscape and historical sensitivities.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:50AM on page 50

I would like to make a general comment

I agree that with the principle, however, a review is an opportunity consider an increase in quantum.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:46AM on page 49

I agree with the proposed approach

This provides an opportunity to provide high quality, high density accommodation.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:41AM on page 45

I disagree with the proposed approach

Where an area has previously been identified and designated for development its use should be fully maximized unless significant new issues have arisen.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:29AM on page 45

I agree with the proposed approach

I support the principle.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:27AM on page 43

I agree with the proposed approach

I agree.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:24AM on page 43

I agree with the proposed approach

Possibilities to densify existing designated developments should always be explored.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:21AM on page 40

I agree with the proposed approach

That seems sensible.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:21AM on page 40

I agree with the proposed approach

That seems sensible.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 11:19AM on page 34

I would like to make a general comment

It is my understanding that local councils have an obligation to meet target housing numbers dictated by the government but have the choice as to location. As our representatives they have a duty of care to ensure housing developments are sited appropriately. Our local council should be fully assured that Oxford is unable meet its housing quota and has explored all opportunities for development with the city before housing requirements are 'farmed out' to other communities.
New developments must contain a substantial (rather than a token) amount of affordable housing.
New developments should be constrained by points 6.35 - 6.43 on page 27 & 28.
Our historic landscape and built environment must be respected.
Development must align with infrastructure provision.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 10:43AM on page 20

I would like to make a general comment

Growth needs to be sustainable and well planned. It needs to provide housing, including a good proportion of affordable housing, whilst protecting the environment and respecting our historic towns and villages and ancient landscapes. Facilities and infrastructure provision is essential before or alongside development.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 10:38AM on page 20

I would like to make a general comment

Basically I agree with the proposal. However, I think there should be some flexibility when using the definitions. It should be used as a guide rather than a target and reflect the specific constraints or advantages of a particular area.

Chris Hanks Dec 9 2025 at 10:29AM on page 11

I agree with the proposed approach

The basic concept is sound. However, with villages there needs to be a nuanced approach reflecting the individual character of our historic villages and their position within countryside and access to facilities and public transport.

View all