North Oxfordshire is subject to an unprecedented avalanche of large-scale developments, all being proposed and considered independent of each other. The planning process does not require developers to take into account the cumulative impact of their own and other applications. You could say it is a ‘whoever gets there first’ planning system. Here is an overview of relevant, local, large scale developments that are under consideration at the time of writing.

Jump to:

• Tritax Warehousing
• Albion Warehousing
• Heyford Park
• Hawkwell Village
• Puy du Fou
• OxSRFI – Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange
• How to object
• NORA’s guide to planning applications

More than a few of the proposed developments do nothing to meet identified local needs for housing, critical infrastructure and basic amenities: the Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange is a national infrastructure project; Tritax Warehousing and Albion Warehousing and the Puy du Fou mass tourist destination applications serve commercial interests while bringing no benefits to local residents and businesses, unless you enjoy traffic congestion, irreversible loss of farmland and our natural environment and looking at huge, grey metal boxes on an industrial estate. 

Cherwell enjoys a well below average unemployment rate at 2.7% versus a national average of 5.1% (Source: Office of National Statistics). This translates into around 2,000 jobseekers in all of Cherwell.

Monster housing applications Hawkwell (7,000+ homes between Bicester and Bucknell) and ‘new town’ Heyford Park (9 to 13,000 homes crammed in between the villages of Upper Heyford, Caulcott, Ardley and Somerton risk destroying Oxfordshire’s rural character and gentle landscape by urbanising it, thereby compromising the very thing that attracts people to the area.

Locals’ heads are spinning with it all. Below are the main points for each development to help you keep up and take action. Your neighbours need you, and you need your neighbours!

Tritax Warehousing: planning decision 15^th January 2026 4pm

What is the proposal?

Buildings comprising logistics and ancillary offices; energy centre, hgv parking, construction of new site access from the B4100; creation of internal roads and access routes; hard and soft landscaping; the construction of parking and servicing areas; substations and other associated infrastructure.

Why is this application problematic?

1. In 2019 a much smaller application on this same site was refused at appeal because of its impact on the “character and appearance” of the area and because it was in an “inappropriate location”. The current proposals are much larger in scale and their industrial character and appearance are even stronger compared to the smaller application.
2. Ecology surveys and reports that accompanied the application were inadequate and out of date. The application is in violation of several policies set out in the adopted Local Plan 2031 and the draft Local Plan 2042.
3. The Environmental Statement fails to address cumulative impact of the proposal alongside the OxSRFI, as was required by the Council’s Scoping Opinion. The application is therefore in direct conflict with environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations 2017.
4. Neither the adopted Local Plan 2031 and the draft Local Plan 2042 mark the land for employment development.. The plan states that unallocated employment development should only be permitted in rural areas in “exceptional circumstances” (policy SLE1, p45) which are not being met here.

See our detailed post on Tritax here.

What happens next?

On Thursday 15^th January 2026 at 4pm Cherwell District Council’s planning committee meets to discuss the application. This is a public meeting.

What can I do?

Take action NOW. You can still object: planning@cherwell-dc.gov.uk quoting planning ref. 22/01340/OUT. Please be sure to include your name and full address, or your objection will be rejected. You can also attend the planning meeting itself as a member of the public. Details can be found here.

Albion Warehousing

What is the proposal?

A logistics park of up to approximately 3,000,000 sq ft. similar to Tritax, except it is a whopping five times larger. It would occupy the land opposite from Tritax, across the Baynard’s Green roundabout and adjacent to the M40 at J10: 

Why is this application problematic?

1. Both Albion and Tritax are served by M40 J10 and the A43, and depend heavily on the Baynard’s Green roundabout which connects the B4100 with the A43 and onto J10. Baynard’s Green is heavily over capacity already leading to hours of congestion daily, while M40 J10 is at capacity and frequently congested at peak times. Any increase in traffic pressure will compromise highway safety and lead to delays in emergency service response times, to name but two serious issues
2. Similar to Tritax above, there is the precedent of a many times smaller development being refused in 2019 on the grounds of the irreversible harm the development would bring to the area.
3.  Again, the adopted Local Plan 2031 and the draft Local Plan 2042 do not mark the land for employment development. The plan states that unallocated employment development should only be permitted in rural areas in “exceptional circumstances” (policy SLE1, p45) which are not being met here.
4. Cherwell’s extremely low unemployment rate of 2.7% removes the argument that the created employment negates the harms inflicted on the area.
5. The development destroys productive farmland for good and causes very significant visual harm to Oxfordshire’s natural landscape. This is in conflict with policies in the Local Plans, adopted and draft, which seek to protect the rural character of north Oxfordshire.

What happens next?

No planning committee date has been set yet. Locals can continue to respond to planning applications even after published consultation dates have passed.

What can I do?

Take action NOW. You can still object: planning@cherwell-dc.gov.uk. Write to your ward councillor and to our local MP, Calum Miller, calum.miller.mp@parliament.uk to share your concerns. The reference numbers to quote are 21/03268/OUT, 21/03266/F and 21/03267/OUT (yes, no fewer than three!).

Heyford Park

What is the proposal?

A giant, urban-looking housing development on a former RAF airbase which has been labelled one of 12 ‘new towns’ by the Labour government. The proposal is for between 9 and 13 thousand homes with vaguely identified amenities such as schools, ‘community facilities’, ‘employment spaces’, and ‘expansive green infrastructure’, whatever that means. 

Why is this application problematic?

1. The scale and urban nature of the proposals are strongly out of character with its direct surroundings, and therefore in conflict with several policies of the Local Plan 2030 and draft LP2042.
2. Encroachment on Upper Heyford and other settlements, leading to coalescence, another clear violation of Local Plan policies.
3.  Poor existing infrastructure which is unable to support the present settlements, and is insufficiently addressed in the proposals.
4. Lack of utilities in the area: capacity on the grid, water supply and wastewater treatment are already insufficient at present.

See our previous post here for more details. 

What happens next?

No planning committee date has been set yet.  

What can I do?

Don’t put it off and take action now. Share your concerns with Cherwell District Council, your ward councillor and our local MP, Calum Miller via calum.miller.mp@parliament.uk quoting Ref. 25/02190/HYBRID and including your name and full address.

Hawkwell Village, NW Bicester

What is the proposal?

A December 2021 planning application for 7,000 houses and amenities to be built between NW Bicester and the village of Bucknell. This is a 3,100 increase in the number of homes initially planned for the development as per Local Plan 2030. Last month the developers submitted updated plans for consideration.

Why is this application problematic?

Around 400 objections were submitted in 2022 by locals protesting the doubling in scale, the lack of infrastructure and meaningful amenities and the proximity of the dense development to the rural village of Bucknell. The December 2025 proposals do not address any of these concerns in a meaningful manner, and the development remains as dense and huge in scale as before.

For a recap of the saga so far and a detailed breakdown of problems we have identified with the proposals, please see this earlier post here.

What happens next?

This one rumbles on. No planning committee date has been set yet.  

What can I do?

Don’t ignore this application, and make your concerns known to the planning authority, Cherwell District Council, your ward councillor and our local MP, Calum Miller, calum.miller.mp@parliament.uk quoting reference 21/04275/OUT.

Puy du Fou

What is the proposal?

Does this one need an introduction? An inexplicable submission by a French operator for a mass tourist destination heavily reliant on private transport in a rural part of Oxfordshire.

Why is this application problematic?

Let us count the ways:

1. Inappropriate site: lack of infrastructure, proximity to villages
2. Loss of productive farmland
3. Environmental harm through destruction of natural habitats, landscape harm, noise, light and air pollution from high traffic levels
4. Land not earmarked for any kind of development in adopted Local Plan 2030 and draft Local Plan 2042
5. Cherwell does not need the employment, and certainly not predominantly seasonal, low paid, low prospects jobs.

More details here  and here.

What happens next?

We continue to make our objections known while no planning committee date has been set.  

What can I do?

If you haven’t objected yet, do so now and encourage others to do the same. Send your response to the planning authority, Cherwell District Council, and also write to your ward councillor and our local MP, Calum Miller, calum.miller.mp@parliament.uk quoting reference 25/02232/OUT.

OxSRFI – Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange

What is the proposal?

This proposal is different from all of the above because it is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and the planning authority is the government, not Cherwell District Council. 

The OxSRFI proposed for Ardley is a “a high-quality new rail freight interchange which supports a more sustainable economy, and creates an attractive working environment while having environmental responsibility as a guiding principle.”

Why is this application problematic?

1. The above greenspeak aside, 70% of all freight movement into OxSRFI will be by road, and 30% by rail. 
2. This will be a 24/7, floodlit, noisy industrial operation. That means heavy goods vehicles trundling down from the A34, A43, M40, B4030 and surrounding B roads into the operation at all hours of the day.
3. Irreversible damage to landscape, natural habitats
4. Noise, light and air pollution 24/7
5. Extremely close proximity to Ardley, the Heyfords and Middleton Stoney. Of interest is the proposed Heyford Park ‘new town’ development of 9-13 thousand homes which would directly abut OxSRFI. 

More here and here. 

What happens next?

The consultation and the decision making process is different for this because it is an NSIP. The developer plans to submit its proposal to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in the first quarter of 2026. After submission, PINS has 28 days to assess whether the application meets the standards for consideration. If it does, a period of examination starts, which includes a local hearing and opportunities for local people to make their views known. PINS has 6 months to carry out the examination, which would take the project into autumn 2026.

What can I do?

Keep an eye out for updates and when the time comes, register your interest to participate in the examination. More here. In the meantime, do write to our local MP Calum Miller with your questions and concerns: calum.miller.mp@parliament.uk.

How to object

Send your objection to planning@cherwell-dc.gov.uk as an email, or with a separate document with your objection.

Send by post to Cherwell District Council, Planning Team, 39 Castle Quay Banbury Oxon OX16 5FD

Please ensure you include the relevant reference number, your name, and your full address. Without these, your objection will not be accepted.

Use the planning portal to respond, but be advised it is known to crash and lose submissions. 

NORA recommends checking the portal to verify whether your objection has been recorded and published.

One more thing before you go…

Sign up to our updates – you can unsubscribe anytime – to stay informed on new developments on this and other planning applications.

Please share this post far and wide – our aim is to reach as many people as possible and to make it as easy and quick as possible for anyone to influence decisions that serve us all, not just developers…

OK, that’s two things! Thank you for flying with NORA today. Over and out.