Plans for £340m science park off Oxfordshire M40 refused

Greystoke Land wanted to turn the western half of Waterstock Golf Club near Wheatley into an industrial site with eight storey buildings replacing the tree-lined course.

The proposed development, which would have been known as the Waterstock Science and Innovation Park, would have been built on more than 100 acres of green belt land.

READ MORE: Oxford late night burglary being investigated by police

There was fierce opposition to the plans, with hundreds of people joining a protest walk through the site and nearly 400 objection letters sent to South Oxfordshire District Council.

The council turned down the application on Monday (November 6), citing 17 grounds for refusal.

Helen Marshall, director of CPRE Oxfordshire, the Countryside Charity, welcomed the refusal of the plans.

The decision was described as an “early Christmas present” by Waterstock Parish Council chairman, Rob Arthur, who said the development was “unwanted.”

“This was a dreadful application with so many negative implications including yet more traffic on already overloaded local roads, damage to the habitats of local wildlife and loss of popular recreational area,” he said.

“Indeed, the damaging impacts would not just have been felt in Waterstock village and surrounding villages but also on the golf club, the riding school, the local wildlife site, public footpaths including the Oxfordshire way and the Oxford green belt to name a few.

“One of the lessons Covid taught us was the importance of recreation to our physical and mental well-being.

READ MORE: Oxford man convicted of dangerous driving and bilking

“This unwanted development, had it been permitted, would have shredded the recreational opportunities around here.

“Although, we are celebrating this great news, we can’t be sure that the developers won’t appeal, or return with a modified proposal, so we all need to remain vigilant.

“Overall, however, this is a wonderful result for the wildlife, flora and fauna and most importantly all the villages and people that rely on this special area for their hobbies and well-being — an early Christmas present.”

The application was turned down for ecological and traffic reasons, and because it would mean the loss of the existing public access to the site and the open countryside.

Mr Arthur said: “Firstly, we would like to express our thanks to the SODC Planning Department for its comprehensive rejection of this Application – they gave a record number of 17 grounds for refusal.

“We would also like to thank the many surrounding villages, towns, golfers, horse riders, walkers, nature lovers and others from key organisations who took the time to write in and object.”

Greystoke Land were contacted for comment but did not respond.