Key Points
- Oxfordshire council rejects 83-home plan.
- A40 traffic fears cited as main reason.
- Village residents oppose increased congestion.
- Highway authority objects due capacity issues.
- Developers vow to appeal 2026 decision.
Oxfordshire (Oxford Daily News) February 18, 2026 – West Oxfordshire District Council has refused planning permission for 83 new homes in the village of Eynsham, primarily due to fears over increased traffic on the already strained A40 road. The decision, announced this week, has ignited discussions on balancing housing demand with infrastructure limitations in rural Oxfordshire amid the 2026 planning year. Local residents and councillors highlighted severe congestion risks as pivotal in the rejection.
Why was the 83-home plan refused?
The planning application for 83 homes on land off Acre End Street in Eynsham was formally rejected by West Oxfordshire District Council’s planning committee on February 17, 2026. As reported by James Bennett of the Oxford Mail, the council’s decision hinged on an objection from National Highways, the body overseeing major roads like the A40. National Highways argued that the additional homes would generate unacceptable traffic volumes, potentially worsening peak-hour delays between Oxford and Cheltenham.
The inverted pyramid structure of this story prioritises the core facts: the refusal, the location, the primary reason (A40 traffic), and key stakeholders involved. Supporting details follow, including resident testimonies and developer responses. Eynsham, a village of around 5,800 residents west of Oxford, has long grappled with A40 bottlenecks, a key commuter route linking Oxfordshire to the Cotswolds.
What traffic fears drove the rejection?
Traffic concerns dominated the planning debate, with the A40’s single-carriageway sections east of Eynsham identified as critically vulnerable. As detailed by Emily Clarkson of the Oxford Times, local parish council data showed current A40 queues stretching up to two miles during rush hours, a situation worsened by ongoing maintenance works in early 2026.
Residents presented evidence from traffic counters installed in 2025, revealing average delays of 15 minutes at the Eynsham roundabout. The council’s transport assessment concurred, noting no viable mitigation like junction upgrades was feasible within the application’s scope. This refusal aligns with Oxfordshire County Council’s 2026 Local Transport Plan, which prioritises road safety over speculative housing.
Who opposed the housing development?
Opposition was widespread, uniting residents, the parish council, and highways experts. Eynsham Parish Council unanimously objected, submitting a 2,000-signature petition against the plan. As covered by Rachel Patel of BBC Oxford, over 150 villagers attended the planning meeting, many voicing fears of increased accident risks at the A40’s Bertie Place interchange.
National Highways’ stance was decisive, as their objection carries significant weight under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Environmental groups like CPRE Oxfordshire also weighed in, citing harm to the green belt buffer near the A40. Even Oxfordshire County Council’s highways team echoed these concerns, projecting a 12% rise in heavy goods vehicle traffic post-development.
What do developers say about the refusal?
The applicants, represented by Gladman Developments, expressed deep disappointment and signalled an immediate appeal.
Gladman planning director Andrew Carter commented: “We presented robust evidence showing minimal net traffic impact, including sustainable transport options for residents.”
As reported by Henry Lloyd of the Oxfordshire Guardian, the firm argued their proposal included 40% affordable housing, addressing local needs identified in the 2026 Housing Register. Gladman highlighted a proposed travel plan with bus links to Oxford and Witney, claiming it would reduce car dependency by 20%.
Mr Carter added: “The council ignored our independent traffic modelling, which predicted only marginal A40 increases.”
The developer referenced successful similar schemes in nearby Carterton, where traffic fears were mitigated through developer-funded signals. They vowed to challenge the decision at the Planning Inspectorate, potentially delaying any resolution into late 2026.
How does this fit Oxfordshire’s housing crisis?
Oxfordshire faces acute housing shortages, with West Oxfordshire needing 1,200 new homes annually under the 2026-2031 Local Plan. Eynsham’s refusal exacerbates this, as the district already lags by 15% on targets. As analysed by Simon Hargreaves of Planning Resource, the decision underscores tensions between national housing mandates and local infrastructure realities.
Supporters of the plan, including district councillor Claire Rhodes, argued for exceptions. Critics, however, point to the 2025 A40 Air Quality Action Plan, which flags Eynsham as a pollution hotspot vulnerable to more traffic. This case mirrors refusals in Burford and Chipping Norton, where A40 pressures led to similar outcomes in 2026.
What are the local residents’ main concerns?
Eynsham villagers fear the development would transform their community. As documented by freelance journalist Kate Morrow in the Eynsham Echo, a resident survey showed 78% opposition, citing noise, pollution, and strain on GP services alongside traffic.
Safety loomed large, with references to three A40 collisions in 2025 near the site. Residents invoked the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development but argued unsustainability here due to transport deficits. Community groups like Eynsham Against Overdevelopment mobilised, vowing to support any appeal resistance.
Why is the A40 such a contentious road?
The A40, Oxfordshire’s busiest non-motorway route, carries 30,000 vehicles daily between Oxford and the M40. Bottlenecks at Eynsham stems from 1970s infrastructure failing 2026 demands.
Oxfordshire County Council engineer Paul Davies explained: “Widening is cost-prohibitive at £150 million; demand management is our strategy.”
As explored by transport writer Fiona Grant in Roads UK, dualling proposals date to 2010 but falter on environmental grounds, including Wytham Woods SSSI impacts.
Peak congestion averages 25 minutes from Botley to Eynsham, per 2026 INRIX data. HGVs from Cotswold distribution centres compound issues, with no viable rail freight alternatives. This refusal reinforces county-wide A40 policies, prioritising upgrades like smart motorways over peripheral development.
What planning policies influenced the decision?
West Oxfordshire’s 2031 Local Plan designates Eynsham for modest growth, capping sites at 50 units absent infrastructure. The NPPF paragraph 109 mandates “safe and suitable access,” which officers deemed unmet.
Planning officer Rebecca Holt reported: “No highway improvements render the scheme undeliverable.”
As outlined by legal expert Marcus Hale in Local Government Lawyer, such refusals withstand appeals 70% of the time when highways object.
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 empowers councils to refuse on traffic grounds, even amid housing crises. Sustainability appraisals flagged flood risks too, tying into the A40’s vulnerability during 2026 storms.
How have similar cases played out?
Precedents abound: In 2025, 120 homes in Long Hanborough were refused on A40 grounds, upheld at appeal. Conversely, Witney’s 2024 approval included £2m developer contributions for signals. As chronicled by Andrew Poole of Housing Today, 2026 sees 40% more A40-related refusals county-wide.
These cases highlight a pattern: Developers succeed with mitigation funds, but standalone proposals falter.
What next steps follow the refusal?
Gladman has 26 weeks to appeal under 2026 regulations. Parallelly, the council advances its Local Plan review, potentially reallocating Eynsham quotas.
Council leader Will Richards pledged: “We’ll consult on A40-proofed growth strategies by summer.”
Residents anticipate public inquiries, while highways explore park-and-ride expansions.
Long-term, Oxfordshire’s devolved powers under 2026 Transport Settlement may fund A40 tweaks, unlocking housing. This saga spotlights rural England’s plight: Housing targets clash with roads built for 1960s volumes. Nationally, 25% of 2026 refusals cite traffic, per CPRE stats.
RTPI president Sue Cook observed: “Integrated planning is key; siloed highways doom homes.”
In Oxfordshire, it pressures urban intensification, though brownfield capacity is limited. Eynsham’s fight may inspire villages nationwide.
Stakeholder reactions in detail
Beyond headlines, nuanced views emerge.
Oxford Preservation Trust’s Helen Baxter cautioned: “A40 strain affects heritage routes too.”
Developers counter with economic benefits: 200 jobs in construction, council tax uplift.
Councillors split: Greens backed refusal; Lib Dems sought compromises. Labour’s Dan Wilson abstained, citing housing urgency. Beyond traffic, ecology reports noted bat habitats on-site.
Natural England advisor Tim Greer advised: “Mitigation insufficient for protected species.”
Socially, 35% affordable units targeted young families, but access woes undermined viability. 2026’s net zero push amplifies A40 emissions concerns, with EV uptake lagging.
Lessons from the planning meeting
The February 17 session ran four hours, with 20 speakers. Chair Grant managed tensions adeptly. Voting was 11-2 against, with conditions deemed unworkable. Transcripts reveal data-heavy debates, underscoring evidence-based planning. Village leaders eye neighbourhood plans for controlled expansion.
Eynsham Neighbourhood Plan chair Rob Symmonds said: “We’ll prioritise infill over A40 sprawl.”
County-wide, A40 strategy papers due March 2026 may pivot development southwards.
