Developer reveals its plans for 700 homes

Developer reveals its plans for 700 homes

Steve Price of Countrywide Properties explains the proposals for the extension to Kingsmere Estate

An artist's impression of the new development

First published in News by

PLANS for hundreds of new homes, a primary school, sports land and a community wood have been unveiled.

Kingsmere developer Countryside Properties has revealed proposals for the second phase of its development at former farmland off Oxford and Middleton Stoney roads.

In 2008 the firm was given planning permission for phase one to build 1,585 homes, a health village, elderly people’s home, shops, pub and restaurant, a primary school and a secondary school.

Work started on the site about two years ago and so far about 100 homes, a hotel, pub and new link road have been built.

Now plans for the second phase, which is included in Cherwell District Council’s Local Plan, are expected to be submitted next month.

Proposals include up to 700 new homes, a shop, a youth sports pitch next to the sports village, and land for a second primary school.

At the moment the plans show a road separating the youth pitch and adult sports facilities, but Countryside Properties say that could change.

As part of the package, Countryside Properties will give about 49 hectares of land to Cherwell District Council to develop a community woodland or park area.

The open space area would be located off Vendee Drive, nearer the A41 end, between the road and Chesterton, and would be a buffer for the village, which was originally opposed to any development at the site.

Related links

Three options for the land are out to consultation, which include enhancing the site but keeping an element of agriculture, creating a park area or planting a full woodland.

Steve Price, of Countryside Properties, said: “We are hoping to submit plans at the end of March, but it depends on comments from the consultation and what requests there are for changes.

“Phase two won’t happen for a couple of years, but land on phase one and two will at some stage work together. The community woodland would be delivered by Cherwell District Council and we provide the land.

“We would not lay the woodland out – it’s for the council to decide.”

He said phase one had been split into 22 parcels of land, and so far about 10 had been sold to housebuilders.

Two hectares of commercial land on phase one, near the Premier Inn hotel, had received “expressions of interest”, but no planning applications had yet been submitted.

Chesterton resident David Jones welcomed the woodland proposal and said the village was looking at creating new links to it. He said: “With the park-and-ride nearby there will be parking and it would be ideal for people with wheelchairs.”

Cherwell spokesman Jemma Callow said: “The emerging Cherwell Local Plan identifies 28.5 hectares of land north of the new road at south west Bicester for further development.

“The council would encourage people to express their views on Countryside Properties’ proposals for the area including the land between the development and Chesterton.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:56pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Myron Blatz says...

I used to think that MPs and local Councillors were elected to represent what the PEOPLE wanted to see happen, rather than what Councils and developers might want? We see genuine local need and concern (especially views made by Parish Councils) being overshadowed by bureaucracy, politics and commercial gain taking centre-stage. We often laugh at the way many so-called 'third world countries' run things, but are we really more democratic?
I used to think that MPs and local Councillors were elected to represent what the PEOPLE wanted to see happen, rather than what Councils and developers might want? We see genuine local need and concern (especially views made by Parish Councils) being overshadowed by bureaucracy, politics and commercial gain taking centre-stage. We often laugh at the way many so-called 'third world countries' run things, but are we really more democratic? Myron Blatz
  • Score: -2

4:44pm Mon 25 Feb 13

icba1957 says...

"In 2008 the firm was given planning permission for phase one to build 1,585 homes, a health village, elderly people’s home, shops, pub and restaurant, a primary school and a secondary school.

Work started on the site about two years ago and so far about 100 homes, a hotel, pub and new link road have been built."

I see no reference to permission for a hotel. Perhaps Myron knows what he's talking about.
"In 2008 the firm was given planning permission for phase one to build 1,585 homes, a health village, elderly people’s home, shops, pub and restaurant, a primary school and a secondary school. Work started on the site about two years ago and so far about 100 homes, a hotel, pub and new link road have been built." I see no reference to permission for a hotel. Perhaps Myron knows what he's talking about. icba1957
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Mon 25 Feb 13

hagar1 says...

@ Myron. I think you will find that MP's and Councillors are elected to do what is best for ALL of the people not just those suffering from Nimbyism.
@ Myron. I think you will find that MP's and Councillors are elected to do what is best for ALL of the people not just those suffering from Nimbyism. hagar1
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Severian says...

icba1957 wrote:
"In 2008 the firm was given planning permission for phase one to build 1,585 homes, a health village, elderly people’s home, shops, pub and restaurant, a primary school and a secondary school.

Work started on the site about two years ago and so far about 100 homes, a hotel, pub and new link road have been built."

I see no reference to permission for a hotel. Perhaps Myron knows what he's talking about.
ICBA, in the original planning application 06/02225/OUT it is clear that a hotel was always intended to be included.

The proposal was for "Outline - Up to 1585 no. dwellings; health village to include health and employment uses and elderly persons nursing home; B1 and B2 employment uses; local centre comprising of shops, a pub/restaurant, children's day nursery, offices and a community centre; 2 no. primary schools and 1 no. secondary school; a hotel; a sports pavilion; formal and informal open space; a link road between A41 and Middleton Stoney Road/Howes Lane junction; associated new roads, junctions, parking, infrastructure, earthworks and new accesses to agricultural land. "

I think you'll also find that our Council is elected to do what the Tory party wants, not what the local people want (as evidenced by the Eco-Town proposals being bundled through without proper consideration and against local opposition).
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: "In 2008 the firm was given planning permission for phase one to build 1,585 homes, a health village, elderly people’s home, shops, pub and restaurant, a primary school and a secondary school. Work started on the site about two years ago and so far about 100 homes, a hotel, pub and new link road have been built." I see no reference to permission for a hotel. Perhaps Myron knows what he's talking about.[/p][/quote]ICBA, in the original planning application 06/02225/OUT it is clear that a hotel was always intended to be included. The proposal was for "Outline - Up to 1585 no. dwellings; health village to include health and employment uses and elderly persons nursing home; B1 and B2 employment uses; local centre comprising of shops, a pub/restaurant, children's day nursery, offices and a community centre; 2 no. primary schools and 1 no. secondary school; a hotel; a sports pavilion; formal and informal open space; a link road between A41 and Middleton Stoney Road/Howes Lane junction; associated new roads, junctions, parking, infrastructure, earthworks and new accesses to agricultural land. " I think you'll also find that our Council is elected to do what the Tory party wants, not what the local people want (as evidenced by the Eco-Town proposals being bundled through without proper consideration and against local opposition). Severian
  • Score: 1

5:20pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Severian says...

p.s. It turns out that after they got planning permission for SW Bicester no-one has any money to pay for the sports pavilion, which was presumably one of the sweeteners that got the deal through?
p.s. It turns out that after they got planning permission for SW Bicester no-one has any money to pay for the sports pavilion, which was presumably one of the sweeteners that got the deal through? Severian
  • Score: 0

7:33am Tue 26 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

hagar1 wrote:
@ Myron. I think you will find that MP's and Councillors are elected to do what is best for ALL of the people not just those suffering from Nimbyism.
Yes, clearly it's best for ALL the people that agricultural land should be concreted. After all we can buy all our food from abroad, can't we, with all the stuff we export? What planet are you from?
[quote][p][bold]hagar1[/bold] wrote: @ Myron. I think you will find that MP's and Councillors are elected to do what is best for ALL of the people not just those suffering from Nimbyism.[/p][/quote]Yes, clearly it's best for ALL the people that agricultural land should be concreted. After all we can buy all our food from abroad, can't we, with all the stuff we export? What planet are you from? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:27am Tue 26 Feb 13

hagar1 says...

@Mr Palmerstone. We need to develop around the edge of town, unfortunately this involves using a small amount of agricultural land - just like areas such as Glory farm, Bure Park etc. most people who moan about development don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts but because they feel they have a divine right to live in the countryside. I don't want bad development BUT I do object to hearing people whine because the development doesn't suit them.
@Mr Palmerstone. We need to develop around the edge of town, unfortunately this involves using a small amount of agricultural land - just like areas such as Glory farm, Bure Park etc. most people who moan about development don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts but because they feel they have a divine right to live in the countryside. I don't want bad development BUT I do object to hearing people whine because the development doesn't suit them. hagar1
  • Score: 0

9:55am Tue 26 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

How about a condition of any new planning being granted that the first phase is completed houses/school sports field is completed i have no objections to any development i would just like to see them complete we shall have a part or not built eco town do we need more building sites?
Bring on the new tescos they need somewhere to shop
How about a condition of any new planning being granted that the first phase is completed houses/school sports field is completed i have no objections to any development i would just like to see them complete we shall have a part or not built eco town do we need more building sites? Bring on the new tescos they need somewhere to shop steve1955
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Severian says...

hagar1 wrote:
@Mr Palmerstone. We need to develop around the edge of town, unfortunately this involves using a small amount of agricultural land - just like areas such as Glory farm, Bure Park etc. most people who moan about development don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts but because they feel they have a divine right to live in the countryside. I don't want bad development BUT I do object to hearing people whine because the development doesn't suit them.
Actually, the biggest question is whether we NEED to develop. One of the biggest drivers of need is the increased population, being driven mostly by migration from Eastern Europe.

The other driver is increasing house prices making living closer to London unaffordable for many people.

It seems to many that the biggest problems we face are caused by central government's inability to control, predict or plan for the future.

What is also interesting is that the draft local development plan says we NEED to build thousands more houses in Bicester, then says we NEED to create thousands more jobs for the people who live in them. So where are all these thousands of people living and working at the minute that means they NEED to live in Bicester?
[quote][p][bold]hagar1[/bold] wrote: @Mr Palmerstone. We need to develop around the edge of town, unfortunately this involves using a small amount of agricultural land - just like areas such as Glory farm, Bure Park etc. most people who moan about development don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts but because they feel they have a divine right to live in the countryside. I don't want bad development BUT I do object to hearing people whine because the development doesn't suit them.[/p][/quote]Actually, the biggest question is whether we NEED to develop. One of the biggest drivers of need is the increased population, being driven mostly by migration from Eastern Europe. The other driver is increasing house prices making living closer to London unaffordable for many people. It seems to many that the biggest problems we face are caused by central government's inability to control, predict or plan for the future. What is also interesting is that the draft local development plan says we NEED to build thousands more houses in Bicester, then says we NEED to create thousands more jobs for the people who live in them. So where are all these thousands of people living and working at the minute that means they NEED to live in Bicester? Severian
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

"We need to develop around the edge of town" Why do we NEED to concrete round Bicester? If someone's house backed on to open land in the 40's to the 70's when we had a higher birth rate than now and continued to do so as the baby boomers marched through adulthood why, in the name of sanity should their home be blitzed by concrete when the indigenous population is below replacement level in reproduction? I suppose that your committee thinks people have a divine duty to live in a Hong Kong landscape. Wasn't there something about "What shall it profiteth a man..." in the Gospel of St Paul? Though he was talking about Faith Hope and Charity it hardly seems that even the concretors can benefit once they have overseen the removal of the last tree in Bicester to a tree museum- to paraphrase Joanie Mitchell.
"We need to develop around the edge of town" Why do we NEED to concrete round Bicester? If someone's house backed on to open land in the 40's to the 70's when we had a higher birth rate than now and continued to do so as the baby boomers marched through adulthood why, in the name of sanity should their home be blitzed by concrete when the indigenous population is below replacement level in reproduction? I suppose that your committee thinks people have a divine duty to live in a Hong Kong landscape. Wasn't there something about "What shall it profiteth a man..." in the Gospel of St Paul? Though he was talking about Faith Hope and Charity it hardly seems that even the concretors can benefit once they have overseen the removal of the last tree in Bicester to a tree museum- to paraphrase Joanie Mitchell. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Tue 26 Feb 13

hagar1 says...

My apologies - I should have said IF we need to develop. Structured arguments discussing the benefits of development or otherwise should be encouraged. However, objecting to development because it doesn't meet with an individuals aesthetics is not a sound basis for denial. I read with interest recently of residents objecting to industrial developments beyond the Greenwood homes estate as they felt the land should be a buffer - what do they think the land they live on used to be? Again I reiterate - nimbyism is no basis for sensible discussion.
My apologies - I should have said IF we need to develop. Structured arguments discussing the benefits of development or otherwise should be encouraged. However, objecting to development because it doesn't meet with an individuals aesthetics is not a sound basis for denial. I read with interest recently of residents objecting to industrial developments beyond the Greenwood homes estate as they felt the land should be a buffer - what do they think the land they live on used to be? Again I reiterate - nimbyism is no basis for sensible discussion. hagar1
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Severian says...

hagar1 wrote:
My apologies - I should have said IF we need to develop. Structured arguments discussing the benefits of development or otherwise should be encouraged. However, objecting to development because it doesn't meet with an individuals aesthetics is not a sound basis for denial. I read with interest recently of residents objecting to industrial developments beyond the Greenwood homes estate as they felt the land should be a buffer - what do they think the land they live on used to be? Again I reiterate - nimbyism is no basis for sensible discussion.
I object to the Greenwood development, but not to do with aesthetics. My objections are more around the placement of a transport hub in the middle of housing developments, when the sensible place for these sites is near to main traffic routes like the A34/M40.

And I'm not being a NIMBY because I don't live anywhere near the proposed site - it's just bad planning.

And I can't see any reason to object to the Phase 2 plans for Kingsmere, because this has always been planned since the whole area was originally proposed. All they are doing now is bringing forward the detailed plans, so no-one can say they didn't expect this.
[quote][p][bold]hagar1[/bold] wrote: My apologies - I should have said IF we need to develop. Structured arguments discussing the benefits of development or otherwise should be encouraged. However, objecting to development because it doesn't meet with an individuals aesthetics is not a sound basis for denial. I read with interest recently of residents objecting to industrial developments beyond the Greenwood homes estate as they felt the land should be a buffer - what do they think the land they live on used to be? Again I reiterate - nimbyism is no basis for sensible discussion.[/p][/quote]I object to the Greenwood development, but not to do with aesthetics. My objections are more around the placement of a transport hub in the middle of housing developments, when the sensible place for these sites is near to main traffic routes like the A34/M40. And I'm not being a NIMBY because I don't live anywhere near the proposed site - it's just bad planning. And I can't see any reason to object to the Phase 2 plans for Kingsmere, because this has always been planned since the whole area was originally proposed. All they are doing now is bringing forward the detailed plans, so no-one can say they didn't expect this. Severian
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

I find myself 100% in agreement with Severian. Nurse!
I find myself 100% in agreement with Severian. Nurse! Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
I find myself 100% in agreement with Severian. Nurse!
Ha ha ha - that's a first!
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: I find myself 100% in agreement with Severian. Nurse![/p][/quote]Ha ha ha - that's a first! Severian
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree