SPB's OBJECTION IN FULL

OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 26/01731/OUT

Land north of Shergold Road and west of Mount Owen Road, Bampton

To WODC Planning

Planning Services, West Oxfordshire District Council

Application 26/01731/OUT

26/01731/OUT

Proposal. Land west of Mount Owen Road

Outline application for up to 190 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except access

 August 7 2026

I am writing on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Bampton, which represents over 300 local residents.

We wish to object to the above application.

We recognise that the proposal would provide new housing, including up to 76 affordable homes if the stated 40% provision is delivered in full. 

We also recognise that West Oxfordshire District Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development and the balancing exercise in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework therefore apply.

However, the NPPF does not require every housing application to be approved. Permission should still be refused where the particular adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole.

In this case, the benefits of housing provision do not overcome the unresolved infrastructure constraints, the scale and location of the development, the admitted landscape harm, the loss of countryside and best and most versatile agricultural land, and the shortcomings in the ecological, drainage and access evidence.

1. The proposal conflicts with the emerging spatial strategy for Bampton

This is not a modest rounding-off of the village. It is a major development of up to 190 dwellings on approximately 15 hectares of open countryside beyond Bampton’s established northern edge.

The Council’s Regulation 19 draft Local Plan 2043 has now advanced to the formal publication and consultation stage. Although it is not yet adopted and its individual policies cannot be given full weight, it is plainly a material consideration. The NPPF says the weight to be given to an emerging plan depends upon its stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections and its consistency with national policy.

The emerging strategy is especially relevant because it has considered Bampton’s future housing needs and the suitability of alternative directions of growth. It proposes that future development in Bampton should be modest and proportionate and identifies land to the east of the village for up to 150 homes. The Council’s evidence records that a number of sites were assessed and concludes that eastward expansion is the most appropriate strategic direction. It also expressly recognises cumulative infrastructure concerns and proposes that the allocated development should take place later in the plan period because of wastewater limitations.

This application would instead provide:

• 190 homes rather than the emerging allocation of up to 150;
• development to the north and west rather than in the preferred eastern direction;
• a further major expansion immediately after the recent development of approximately 160 homes to the south; and
• development before the wastewater upgrades and later phasing envisaged by the emerging plan.

The application would therefore pre-empt decisions concerning the appropriate scale, location and timing of further growth in Bampton. The Council should not allow the absence of a five-year housing supply to result in an uncoordinated development pattern which frustrates its emerging strategy and commits the village to materially more growth than the plan-making process has identified as proportionate.

We recognise that the NPPF sets a high threshold for refusing an application solely on grounds of prematurity. Nevertheless, even if the Council decides that a formal prematurity refusal is not justified, the emerging plan and its supporting infrastructure evidence remain material to the overall planning balance.

2. Wastewater and surface-water drainage have not been shown to be deliverable

Drainage is not a peripheral matter to be resolved after outline permission. It is one of the principal constraints affecting whether development of this scale can safely and sustainably take place.

Wastewater capacity

The emerging Local Plan evidence states that Bampton Sewage Treatment Works has exceeded its permitted dry-weather-flow measure in four of the last five years, lacks sufficient hydraulic and storm-tank capacity, and requires upgrading. It warns that accepting additional flows before those upgrades risks increasing storm discharges into Shill Brook. The anticipated upgrades are not due until approximately 2028, and this is one reason why the Council’s proposed Bampton allocation is placed later in the plan period.

The applicant’s own documents do not resolve this problem. The Drainage Strategy states that:

• the off-site Thames Water network may need upgrading;
• a pre-planning capacity enquiry has been made;
• network works may be required if insufficient capacity is identified;
• foul drainage from part of the development will require a pumping station; and
• confirmation of the available capacity remains outstanding.

Source: Applicant's Drainage Strategy, sections 5.4-5.5 and conclusions.

It is not sufficient to grant outline permission first and establish afterwards whether the wastewater network can accommodate the development. Before determination, Thames Water should provide a definitive, site-specific response confirming:

1. the capacity of the receiving foul sewer;

2. the capacity of Bampton Sewage Treatment Works;

3. all necessary reinforcement and treatment works;

4. the timetable and funding for those works;

5. whether any occupation must be delayed until the works are complete; and

6. the measures required to prevent additional sewage overflows into Shill Brook.

A “Grampian” condition preventing occupation until upgrades are completed would be the minimum safeguard, but only if the Council is satisfied that the necessary works are realistic, deliverable and sufficiently certain.

Surface-water drainage

The site is not free of flood constraints merely because it is predominantly within Flood Zone 1. The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment identifies areas in the eastern and southern parts of the site at high risk of surface-water flooding. It also accepts that development will increase impermeable surfaces and runoff and that infiltration is unlikely to be feasible because of the underlying Oxford Clay and mudstone.

Source: Applicant's Flood Risk Assessment, section 5.1.2.

The applicant consequently proposes large attenuation basins and a mechanically pumped discharge to an existing swale south of the site. However:

• the capacity and depth of nearby receiving watercourses are described as unknown;
• alternative routes require works under Mount Owen Road or across third-party land;
• the preferred solution depends upon pumping rather than a gravity outfall;
• the receiving drainage capacity has not been conclusively established;
• the drainage network is expected to remain privately maintained; and
• the detailed maintenance arrangements are deferred until handover.

Source: Applicant's Drainage Strategy, sections 4.1, 5.5, 6 and 7.

The Drainage Strategy itself quotes the local requirement that, before discharge into an existing sewer or drain, evidence must demonstrate that the owner has accepted both the point and rate of discharge and that sufficient capacity is available.

That evidence is not presently demonstrated.

This is particularly important because the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment records that Bampton is among the parts of West Oxfordshire with the greatest number of external sewer-flooding incidents.

The Council should not approve the principle of 190 dwellings while the fundamental outfall, pumping, capacity, ownership, maintenance and exceedance arrangements remain uncertain. The Lead Local Flood Authority should be required to confirm expressly that the strategy is technically acceptable and deliverable, including during pump failure, prolonged power interruption and rainfall exceeding the design event.

Potable-water capacity

The Utility Infrastructure Report records that the proposed water connection currently has capacity for only the first 49 plots, with Thames Water modelling and possible reinforcement required for the remainder. That modelling is stated to take place only after outline or full planning permission.

Source: Applicant's Utility Infrastructure Report, section 4.13.

This is further evidence that the proposal is being promoted ahead of confirmation that the village’s essential infrastructure can support it.

3. The access and sustainable-transport case is not convincing

The principal vehicle access would be from Mount Owen Road. The applicant’s own Transport Assessment describes this section of Mount Owen Road as subject to the national speed limit, without footways and without street lighting.

Source: Applicant's Transport Assessment, section 3.2.

Recorded 85th-percentile speeds at the proposed access are approximately 41.3 mph northbound and 41.5 mph southbound. To create the access, the proposal requires:

• widening Mount Owen Road to 5 metres;
• constructing a new footway;
• extending the 20 mph limit;
• providing visibility splays of approximately 106 and 107 metres; and
• accommodating the junction, highway works, drainage and visibility requirements without unacceptable loss of boundary vegetation.

Source: Applicant's Transport Assessment, sections 4.3.2-4.3.7.

The Council and highway authority should verify that every part of the required widening, footway, visibility splays and associated drainage lies within land under the applicant’s control or the public highway and can be delivered without relying upon third-party land.

The submitted objections also raise a specific concern about the legal and physical status of pedestrian connections through Shergold Road, Chandler Close and adjoining land. The applicant should be required to demonstrate, through land-title and highway-adoption information, that all routes on which its accessibility case relies are legally available, permanently usable by the public and capable of being constructed to an adoptable standard.

The proposal has only one normal vehicle access. The separate 3.7-metre route through Shergold Road is described as a combined pedestrian, cycle and emergency-vehicle connection. It must therefore perform several potentially competing functions and remain unobstructed and enforceable for the lifetime of the development.

There is also a material inconsistency in the applicant’s assessment of the route to Bampton Primary School:

• the Transport Assessment claims that access via the parking area off Chandler Close reduces the distance from the site centroid to approximately 400 metres;
• the Travel Plan says that there is no direct route to the school and gives a centre-to-school walking distance of up to 1,200 metres, via Shergold Road, Shingleton Way, New Road, Bowling Green Close and Colville Close.

Sources: Applicant's Transport Assessment, section 5.1.10; Applicant's Travel Plan, section 3.2.10.

The Council should require this contradiction to be resolved and should not accept an accessibility assessment based upon an informal or legally unavailable shortcut.

The public-transport provision is modest. The nearest bus stops are said to be within 800 metres of the site centroid. Service 19 generally operates only hourly, has no Sunday service, and its evening service is limited, with the final principal commuter services at around 19:00.

For many employment, secondary education, hospital, leisure and shopping journeys, future residents are therefore likely to depend upon private cars. The proposed Travel Plan measures cannot turn an hourly rural bus service into a frequent and comprehensive alternative.

The development is estimated to generate approximately 117 two-way vehicle movements in the morning peak and 110 in the evening peak. This traffic would be added to narrow village roads and junctions already serving the recent housing development.

Source: Applicant's Transport Assessment, generated-traffic figures and public transport section.

We do not suggest that congestion alone necessarily meets the NPPF’s “severe” test. The more fundamental issues are whether the proposed access works are fully deliverable, whether safe and convenient routes exist for all users, and whether the development genuinely prioritises sustainable modes as required by national policy.

4. Existing healthcare capacity is insufficient

The applicant’s Health Impact Assessment acknowledges that Bampton Surgery has approximately one GP for every 2,566 patients, compared with a stated benchmark of one GP for every 1,800 patients. Despite this, it concludes that the development would have no adverse operational health impact.

That conclusion is directly contradicted by the NHS Thames Valley Integrated Care Board consultation response dated 6 August 2026. The NHS response states that:

• Bampton Surgery has approximately 8,995 registered patients;
• its existing premises provide approximately 574 square metres, against a calculated requirement of approximately 833 square metres;
• the practice already has a substantial space deficit; and
• none of the relevant practices has sufficient clinical capacity to accommodate the new patients generated by the development.

Using the NHS formula, the development would generate approximately 456 additional patients and a primary-care contribution of approximately £175,540.

Source: NHS Thames Valley Integrated Care Board consultation response, 6 August 2026.

A properly secured contribution would mitigate part of the premises impact and should be required through a signed Section 106 agreement. However, a financial contribution is not itself proof that additional premises, GPs, nurses and appointments will actually be delivered. Before permission is granted, the Council should identify the project to which the money would be applied, its delivery timetable and how additional clinical capacity will be made available.

The conflict between the applicant’s optimistic Health Impact Assessment and the formal NHS response must be resolved in the decision-making process.

5. The applicant’s own assessment identifies significant landscape harm

The development would extend Bampton northwards into open countryside and materially change the existing settlement edge.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment attempts to characterise the proposal as a minor and sensitively landscaped extension. Its detailed assessment, however, records more substantial effects:

• the magnitude of change to the site itself would initially be High;
• the significance of the effect on the site would initially be Major/Moderate to Moderate adverse;
• even after ten years of planting, the effect would remain Moderate to Moderate/Minor; and
• views from Mount Owen Road would experience Major/Moderate to Moderate adverse effects during the early years.

Source: Applicant's Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, sections 5.20-5.23 and visual effects table.

The assessment expressly acknowledges that the proposal extends Bampton’s settlement edge into the open landscape.

It also acknowledges that views are available from the rising landscape north of the village. A relevant public bridleway to the east was not evaluated because the consultant was unable to access it.

The claimed long-term acceptability relies heavily on extensive planting eventually screening or softening the development. Planting may mitigate visibility but it does not reverse the permanent loss of countryside or make 190 homes disappear. Nor is screening necessarily the same as successful integration.

The cumulative impact is also important. The proposal would follow the recent development of approximately 160 homes immediately to the south. Together, the two schemes would represent a major alteration to the scale, form and northern edge of Bampton rather than a minor incremental extension.

The adverse effects identified in the applicant’s own LVIA should be given substantial weight, particularly because the emerging plan identifies a different direction and smaller scale of future growth.

6. The ecological baseline and Biodiversity Net Gain case are insufficiently secure

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal identifies higher-value boundary habitats, including rough grassland, scrub and native hedgerows, and states that further work or avoidance measures are required for several species.

More importantly, the appraisal records that:

• no targeted breeding-bird survey was undertaken;
• trees that may be protected by Tree Preservation Orders were not checked;
• there are 14 native hedgerows, seven associated with ditches;
• those hedgerows may qualify as “important” under the Hedgerow Regulations; and
• no assessment of their statutory importance was undertaken.

Source: Applicant's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, sections 3.3.8-3.3.10.

The report also accepts that site clearance and construction may result in the direct loss of, or permanent damage to, hedgerows. The hedgerows provide low-to-moderate quality foraging and commuting habitat for bats, yet detailed lighting proposals were not available to the ecologist.

The submitted biodiversity metric claims approximately:

• 19.1% net gain in area habitat units; and
• 11.1% net gain in hedgerow units.

The hedgerow result is therefore only narrowly above the statutory 10% minimum. That small margin could be materially affected by changes to the access, visibility splays, drainage works, detailed layout, habitat condition assumptions or the discovery that one or more hedgerows is “important”.

The Biodiversity Net Gain Statement confirms that the gain is intended to be delivered entirely on site, that the enhancements are considered significant and that a Section 106 agreement will be required to secure them. It also refers to a draft Biodiversity Gain Plan.

Before determination, the Council should require:

1. a completed Hedgerow Regulations assessment;

2. confirmation of any Tree Preservation Orders;

3. reconciliation of hedgerow removal with the highway visibility splays and drainage works;

4. a final, auditable statutory metric based upon the same red-line boundary and layout used throughout the application;

5. a detailed Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan;

6. a lighting strategy demonstrating protection of bat corridors;

7. legally enforceable 30-year management and monitoring arrangements; and

8. sufficient contingency to ensure the statutory gain is still met if habitat creation underperforms.

Biodiversity Net Gain is additional to the duty to avoid ecological harm; it is not a licence to damage established boundary habitats and replace them with less certain future planting.

7. Permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land

The applicant’s Agricultural Quality Assessment identifies:

• 5.7 hectares of Subgrade 3a land, amounting to 39% of the surveyed site;
• 8.8 hectares of Subgrade 3b land; and
• only 0.2 hectares of non-agricultural land.

Source: Applicant's Agricultural Quality Assessment, table 1.

Subgrade 3a is best and most versatile agricultural land. Its permanent loss is a material adverse impact, particularly where the Council’s emerging plan has assessed alternative locations for growth.

The report is dated February 2026 but is based upon fieldwork undertaken in October 2017. The Council should ensure that the extent and classification of the agricultural land remain reliable and that soil handling, reuse and long-term management have been properly addressed.

The loss of the Subgrade 3a land may not be decisive by itself, but it must be included in the cumulative planning balance rather than dismissed merely because part of the site is Subgrade 3b.

8. Material inconsistencies and outdated evidence reduce confidence in the submission

A number of errors and inconsistencies appear throughout the application documents. Typographical mistakes are not, by themselves, reasons for refusal, but their frequency raises legitimate concerns about whether reports prepared by different consultants are all assessing precisely the same site and scheme.

Examples include:

• the Energy Report and Waste Minimisation Statement repeatedly locating the development at “Bamford” rather than Bampton;
• documents referring to “Mount Own Road” or “Mound Owen Rod”;
• different site areas of approximately 14.61, 14.7 and 15.3 hectares;
• different developable areas of approximately 6.49 and 6.94 hectares;
• inconsistent postcodes and site descriptions;
• the conflicting school walking distances described above; and
• apparently inconsistent treatment of informal paths and proposed public routes.

These figures matter because they affect drainage calculations, habitat baselines, housing density, public-open-space provision and Biodiversity Net Gain.

The Noise Technical Note is also based principally upon measurements taken in 2017, adjusted using later traffic data, and refers to an October 2023 framework plan rather than undertaking a new comprehensive noise survey for the submitted scheme.

Source: Applicant's Noise Technical Note, introduction and current-noise-environment sections.

The Council should require a consolidated schedule confirming the definitive:

• red-line boundary;
• site and developable areas;
• access drawings;
• housing and open-space parameters;
• drainage catchment;
• habitat baseline;
• hedgerow lengths;
• land ownership and highway limits; and
• documents and revisions upon which the application is to be determined.

9. Planning balance

We acknowledge the principal benefits:

• delivery of up to 190 homes;
• potentially 76 affordable homes;
• construction activity;
• public open space;
• proposed habitat creation; and
• financial contributions that may be secured through a Section 106 agreement.
• 
  

Against those benefits are:

• an unplanned development of greater scale and in a different location from the emerging Bampton strategy;
• premature additional growth before the wastewater upgrades upon which the emerging plan relies;
• unresolved foul-sewer, treatment-work, surface-water and potable-water capacity;
• a pumped and privately maintained drainage solution whose outfall and receiving capacity have not been conclusively demonstrated;
• pressure on a GP practice which the NHS says has no spare clinical capacity;
• reliance upon a single normal vehicle access from a fast rural road;
• unresolved questions regarding the legal and physical deliverability of pedestrian and emergency routes;
• limited public transport and likely high car dependency;
• significant landscape harm acknowledged in the applicant’s own LVIA;
• permanent loss of open countryside and 5.7 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land;
• incomplete assessment of potentially important hedgerows and trees;
• a narrow margin in the claimed hedgerow Biodiversity Net Gain; and
• numerous inconsistencies within the supporting evidence.

These are not minor matters which can all safely be postponed to reserved matters or discharged through generic conditions. They concern whether the development is acceptable and deliverable in principle.

Taken together, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the housing and affordable-housing benefits. The application therefore does not constitute sustainable development when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

Requested decision

We therefore request that West Oxfordshire District Council refuse planning permission.

Suggested reasons for refusal include:

1. Scale, location and settlement pattern: The proposal would represent an excessive and poorly coordinated extension of Bampton into open countryside, contrary to the appropriate scale and pattern of development for the settlement and prejudicial to the emerging spatial strategy.

2. Wastewater and drainage: The applicant has not demonstrated that adequate foul-sewer, treatment-work, surface-water outfall and receiving capacity exists or that all necessary upgrades, pumping, ownership and long-term maintenance arrangements are deliverable.

3. Access and sustainable transport: The applicant has not demonstrated that all required highway, pedestrian, cycle and emergency-access works are legally and physically deliverable or that the proposal would provide safe, convenient and genuinely sustainable access for all users.

4. Landscape and countryside harm: The proposal would cause significant adverse effects on the site, the northern settlement edge and views from Mount Owen Road and the surrounding countryside, with mitigation dependent upon uncertain long-term screening.

5. Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain: Insufficient information has been provided concerning potentially important hedgerows, protected trees, lighting, habitat loss and the secure long-term delivery of the claimed Biodiversity Net Gain.

6. Insufficient and inconsistent supporting information: Material discrepancies in site areas, access assumptions, walking routes, technical baselines and document revisions prevent the Council from being satisfied that the environmental and infrastructure effects have been assessed reliably.

If the Council is not presently minded to refuse the application, determination should at least be deferred until:

• Thames Water has issued definitive foul-sewer, sewage-treatment and clean-water capacity statements;
• all required infrastructure upgrades and occupation restrictions have been identified;
• the Lead Local Flood Authority has approved a complete and deliverable drainage solution;
• legal rights to every drainage outfall and access route have been demonstrated;
• the highway authority has confirmed the safety and deliverability of the access, visibility splays and active-travel routes;
• a signed Section 106 agreement secures affordable housing, healthcare, education, transport, drainage, open-space and ecological obligations;
• the ecological omissions have been addressed and the BNG calculations independently checked;
• an updated noise assessment has been undertaken;
• the site-area and document inconsistencies have been reconciled; and
• the proposal has been assessed fully against the Regulation 19 Local Plan strategy and the cumulative effects of recent and proposed development in Bampton.

Please record this representation as a formal objection and notify me of any committee meeting at which the application is to be considered.

Yours,

Richard McBrien

Chair, Society for the Protection of Bampton

Cobb House

Church Close

Bampton

OX18 2LW