Hawkwell Village comes roaring back in time for Christmas 2025 in an unwelcome surprise to locals, who remember the Christmas 2021 uproar only too well…

A quick recap of the Hawkwell application so far

• 23^rd December 2021: Hallam Land Management submit a planning application for some 7,000 houses and amenities to be built between NW Bicester and the village of Bucknell. This represents a 3,100 increase in the number of homes initially planned for the development. 

• The submitted plan is a huge departure from the original plans seen in the pre-planning stage. According to the new plans, ‘Hawkwell Village’ would occupy an area that far exceeds the land allocated to it in the current Local Plan and encroaches on the village of Bucknell. This too is in conflict with Local Plan policies.

• Locals noted the submission date two days before Christmas and interpreted it as an attempt to effectively shorten the statutory six week consultation period by banking on the submission going unnoticed during the school holidays. After local pressure, Cherwell District Council extended the deadline to the end of March 2022.

• Over 400 objections were submitted and these came from local residents and groups as well as parishes worried about the scale and density of the development, flooding and congestion. Statutory consultees including National Highways lodged concerns about the impact on the road network and the lack of effective traffic modelling to accurately reflect the impact of the development.

• In 2023 Cherwell District Council started consulting on Local Plan 2040 (now 2042). Remarkably, the draft local plan included the exact same new boundaries for the Hawkwell development as proposed in Hallam’s planning application. Many locals submitted comments to CDC asking for these boundaries to be put back where they were in the current local plan.

• Local Plan hearing sessions are scheduled for February 2026 (more on that here). 

• 3^rd December 2025: Hallam Land Management submits new documents with significant amendments to the 2021 plans, triggering a 28-day period in which representations are sought. This is subtly different from a statutory re-consultation. In real terms this makes no difference to locals and other consultees wishing to share their views.

• The deadline for submitting responses is 31st December 2025.

What’s changed in 2025?

Here are the brief headlines:

• National Highways Holding Response (Feb 2025): Still concerned about impacts on A34/M40. May require conditions or delay consent.

• Local Plan 2042: Now at Examination stage, but adopted plan still applies – so this application must comply with current policies.

• No new Environmental Statement Addendum: The applicant hasn’t updated assessments for interim road fixes or cumulative impacts.

• Highways still unresolved: Strategic Link Road funding was pulled in 2021. Applicant proposes “interim mitigation” and Grampian conditions – meaning homes could be built before the main road upgrade.

What are the key issues for residents?

The proposal retains many of its original, significant flaws including:

• Traffic & Rat‑Running: Without the Strategic Link Road, Bucknell faces more congestion and safety risks.
• Environmental Gaps: Noise, air quality, and biodiversity net gain (BNG) not reassessed for interim phasing.
• Strategic Gap & Village Character: No firm safeguards for Bucknell’s separation, dark skies, or heritage setting.
• Deliverability: Heavy reliance on future consents and unfunded infrastructure.

Why object?

• The application is premature and conflicts with the adopted Local Plan (Local Plan 2042 has not yet been adopted).
• Transport impacts remain severe – National Highways hasn’t cleared the development.
• Incomplete EIA – no updated Environmental Statement (ES) for changed phasing.
• Amenity & ecology risks – strategic gap and BNG unresolved.

A note on the bigger context…

Local Plan 2042 is based on a housing need of around 10,000 houses in Cherwell – the majority of which were planned for NW Bicester. Meanwhile a large number of those 10,000 have been granted in Himley on the other side of the railtrack and to Firethorn, adjacent to Elmsbrook. And who could forget that since the draft LP 2042 was submitted 9,000 to 13,000 are now proposed for Heyford Park! 

In other words, if the majority of required houses go to Heyford Park, Hawkwell is not needed. If Hawkwell goes ahead Cherwell doesn’t need Heyford Park to be built. A third option is that both Hawkwell and Heyford Park are reduced in scale.

And we can’t stress this one enough: none of the developments we’re mentioning here is taking into account the many impacts of any of the other developments proposed for this small area in north Oxfordshire: OxSRFI at Ardley, warehousing at Baynard’s Green (more on which in a separate post soon) and Puy du Fou, or the impact of the East West Rail project and continued Bicester Village expansion for that matter.

How to comment

You can comment anytime up to and including 31st December 2025.

1. Go to the Cherwell Planning Portal.
2. Search for 21/04275/OUT, or click here to be taken to the page directly (links open in a new tab).
3. Submit your objection by highlighting material planning grounds such as:
   • Unresolved highways and Strategic Road Network (SRN) impacts.
   • Missing ES updates for interim phasing.
   • Lack of safeguards for Bucknell’s strategic gap and amenity.
   • Failure to demonstrate Biodiversity Net Gain
4. Trouble using the portal (again?) Email, post a letter or direct your carrier pigeon as follows:
   • planning@cherwell-dc.gov.uk
   • Cherwell District Council, Planning Team, 39 Castle Quay, Banbury, OX16 5FD

See our handy guide to planning consultations for more tips and guidance on how to respond