Councillors in Burford are fighting developers for a second time over plans to develop open land on the eastern boundary of the town.
Developer Greystoke is applying for outline permission for up to 70 houses, including affordable homes, on land east of Barns Lane known locally as Cole's Field.
In December 2021 the same developer was refused permission to develop the same greenfield site by West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC).
Greystoke appealed but the appeal was rejected by the Planning Inspector in August 2022.
Burford Town Council said of the latest application: "We regard it as a cynical attempt to batter Burford into submission knowing that we are a small community with limited resources."
It said the application should be refused for "humanitarian" reasons as this is "the fifth battle of Cole's Field" - other attempts have been made to develop the site.
"During all these vicissitudes the residents of Burford, in particular those living closest to the site, had to endure not knowing what the future held for them, suffered planning blight if they wished to sell their property," it said.
In an extensive response to the application, which has drawn over 60 objections online, it also raised concerns about incursion into the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and "the attack" on the Burford Conservation Area.
It argued that access through Witney Street "a narrow country lane" was unsuitable and the A40 junction of White Hill "would be upgraded from dangerous to death trap".
It also cited pressures on infrastructure such as schools and medical services.
READ ALSO: Roads ban for lorry driver who caused fatal crash near Mini plant
Cotswolds National Landscape Board said it "has consistently and firmly objected to the development of this sensitive site".
Greystoke said: "The proposed development has been carefully designed to respond to the Inspector’s decision of August 2022."
Planning documents say the development "will be a highly desirable place to live for the 21st century and beyond".
It will deliver up to 70 new homes "in an integrated and sustainable residential community with a sensitive relationship to the existing settlement".
"It will provide a development that is well connected with the delivery of a new principal access from Witney Street to the north east of the site", sustainable transport choices and "the creation of a strong landscape structure responding to the local area", they say.
Documents say the recent findings of Inspector Butcher, unequivocally demonstrates that there is "a pressing need for additional affordable housing."
READ ALSO: Oxfordshire village could finally get new hall after years of planning
But Burford Town Council disputed that the development was necessary.
"A distinction must be drawn between those who would like to live in Burford and those who must", it said. "According to WODC's Strategic Housing Officer they number 18."
It also mentioned that the town had increased its affordable housing over the past 10 years at Falkland Close, Cheatle Court and Frethern Court plus 45 homes in Cotswold Gate on Shilton Road have not all be taken up yet.
And they questioned whether the housing would meet the definition of "affordable".
"If affordable housing is set at 80 per cent of open market value then in Burford affordable housing is £800,000 or more," it said.
Read more from this author
This story was written by Miranda Norris, she joined the team in 2021 and covers news across Oxfordshire as well as news from Witney.
Get in touch with her by emailing: Miranda.Norris@newsquest.co.uk. Or find her on Twitter: @Mirandajnorris
Profile: Miranda Norris Journalists news from the Oxford Mail
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel