Archive:
Parish Council Meeting
On 1 April 2026, Fortis and Oriel Homes presented to our Parish Council and parishioners to explain their proposals and answer questions.
We appreciate the time and effort that the parish and residents have spent on this. Unfortunately, not all the questions residents intended to raise were able to be shared and discussed due to the meeting being well attended.
Within the answers provided, we noticed many inaccuracies. Direct quotes from Fortis and Oriel, along with corrections to their statements, can be found below.
We hope you find these useful in coming to your conclusions about the proposals.
Intent to Appeal if Refused
What they said:"The intricate detail that most of you will probably be really interested in is something that has to follow on from the planning permission if it was to be granted either at the district level or at appeal”
Why it's a concern: Fortis/Oriel are openly signalling that they intend to pursue the application to appeal if refused at district level. Immediate neighbours were told that if the application were likely to be refused locally, the application would be withdrawn. This is clearly not the case. It also explains why the application was submitted despite such clear and fundamental policy conflicts — the tilted balance argument (Cherwell's housing land supply shortfall) carries more weight at appeal than at committee, and an incomplete application may be supplemented at reserved matters stage or revisited in appeal documents. Presenting this as a casual process explanation rather than a deliberate strategy is itself a form of misdirection.
We Will Be Building It Ourselves
What they said:”We are a developer, we are not a land speculator, we're not a land promoter, we're wanting to make units which would be desirable for us to live in with our families in good communities and doing it in a way which is sympathetic to the built environment that you already have here.” “We are of a size, unlike some bigger PLC house builders, where we can't afford to take a site through the planning process and then sit on it and wait for market conditions or sales values to improve, which a lot of big PLC house builders do. So what I want to assure you all here is that we're… not just taking this planning application very seriously, but we will also be building out the development ourselves if we are successful with the planning.”
Why it's a concern: Immediate neighbours were told that no decision had been made as to what would happen if planning consent was granted - Fortis were simply working on the planning application and discussions were ongoing as to next steps. Oriel Homes name appeared only once the application had been validated. This brings into question whether any of what we are being told is true.
A Category C Village Can Accommodate Small-Scale Development
What they said: "The adopted local plan makes the comment that a Category C village can accommodate small-scale developments. That's our understanding of the local plan. Small-scale development is exactly what we're proposing."
Why it's inaccurate: This is a deliberate misreading of Policy Villages 1. The policy only permits infill or conversions in a Category C village. The term "small-scale" or "minor development" applies exclusively to Category A and B villages under paragraph C.262. The applicant applied this wrong paragraph throughout their Planning Statement, and repeated the same error verbally at the meeting.
A Scheme Designed to be Sympathetic to Existing Built Forms
What they said:”We’re proposing five dwellings on the site. I think in other hands, developers might try and push that number up and create a higher density, but we’ve specifically designed the scheme to be sympathetic to existing build forms and patterns and density."
Why it's inaccurate: Our Appendix A demonstrates that the angled, backland layout is specifically not sympathetic to local grain: dwellings fronting the rears of existing homes, breaking the established pattern of properties aligned to roads with perpendicular gardens. The number “five” is presented as if it were modest and inherently appropriate, but the harm arises from the backland location and arrangement, not just the unit count. The design is described in our assessment as contrived and driven by attempts to mitigate harm to a single view, not by a genuine contextual response. Notwithstanding any of these points, the applicant can offer no more than 5 homes because any greater quantum would require a road and footpath to be provided to adoptable standards - standards the applicant would be unable to meet due to the narrow access from Stoke Lyne Road.
The Access Will Be Widened to Five Metres — We Have Written Agreement
What they said: "By moving the dry stone wall... the stone wall on the right-hand side will, if required, be moved by whatever width that is to be compliant with highways regulations.” And do you have written agreement from the owner of that wall that it will be moved? “Yes, we do."
Why it's misleading: The physical gap between the buildings — not the wall on the right-hand side — is 4.7m. This is reported within their own Transport Statement. Achieving 5.0m is therefore physically impossible without demolishing either Mattingley Barn and it’s boundary wall, or the utility room to 3 The Green Barn.
Refuse Collection Will Be Dealt With On-Site
What they said:"We are proposing to provide an on-site refuse and bin and recycling store area. So at no point are we expecting bins to be scattered down Stoke Lyne Road for the proposed dwellings. That will all be accommodated and dealt with on-site."
Why it's misleading: This statement was made in direct response to awareness of the objection regarding the refuse strategy, yet completely sidesteps the actual non-compliance. Cherwell DC will not collect waste from private roads (which this will have to be). The regulations require refuse to be placed within 25m of the adopted highway and no more than 30m from residents' storage. None of the five dwellings comply — Plot 4 is 137m from the highway, and almost four times the permitted maximum from a refuse collection point. An "on-site storage area" does not resolve the fundamental collection distance failure. Having 10–15 wheelie bins at the collection point would also obstruct the 3.8m access road and sit directly outside bedroom windows at Mattingley Barn.
Twenty-Three Vehicle Movements Is Industry-Standard Data
What they said: "That is presumably taken from the transport statement which I would imagine is based on a set of calculations which are an industry standard for transport and highways... Hugh who runs HVG transport was himself a county's highways officer in a previous role. So it's written in the language and with the same frame of reference that is used to determine all planning applications."
Why it's misleading: The TRICS dataset used to calculate the 23 movements figure draws on 35 survey sites — every single one classified as "edge of town centre" or "edge of town." It also appears that the data being used was not generated for HVG, and is several years old. Not one rural village site is included. Stratton Audley, as a Category C village with no shops, no school, no medical facilities and only four buses a day, generates far higher car dependency than suburban averages. Presenting this figure as "industry standard" without disclosing that the underlying data bears no resemblance to this location is materially misleading.
Defending the Transport Statement
What they said:"One of the objections comments about a flawed transport statement. However, the transport statement has been provided by HVJ Transport Limited, who are incredibly well respected within Oxfordshire and within local authorities. So I would just like to confirm that what we've submitted is a valid transport statement."
Why it's misleading: Fortis/Oriel demonstrate an awareness of the objection regarding the data but offers no technical defence of it whatsoever — instead simply asserting the consultant's reputation is a sufficient rebuttal. The substance of the objection — that all 35 survey sites are classified as "edge of town centre" or "edge of town" with not a single rural village site included — is left entirely unaddressed. The dataset was also prepared for GTA Civils, not HVJ Transport, raising further questions about whether it was prepared for an entirely different project and location and repurposed for this application. A respected consultant producing an inappropriate dataset does not make that dataset appropriate.
The Public Right of Way Doesn't Grant Access Into the Paddock
What they said: “The proposed development also will retain the existing public right of way… There’s no change there whatsoever. There won’t be any diversions, there won’t be any change." "The public right-of-way doesn't grant anyone access into the paddock. The public right-of-way is purely there for the function of a right-of-way to walk over the land. That's why our comment — the statement was made — because the right-of-way is purely there for the function of a right-of-way to walk over the land."
Why it's misleading: While the legal line of the PRoW is unchanged, the experience and setting of the PRoW are fundamentally altered: the route currently crosses open paddock with long views in conjunction with the conservation area and heritage assets. The evidence shows the PRoW is explicitly identified as a positive character contributor and provides key views in the Conservation Area Appraisal. While technically true that a PRoW does not grant the right to roam the entire paddock, this answer was offered as a defence of the Design and Access Statement's claim that "the land is not publicly accessible" — a direct quote. That statement is factually wrong. PRoW footpath 371/5 enters the site via kissing gates on two boundaries, physically crossing the application site. More importantly, the PRoW creates publicly accessible viewpoints of the site in conjunction with the conservation area and heritage assets — a material planning consideration the applicant's documents entirely failed to assess.
The Proposals Have Been Designed to Respect the Stratton Audley Conservation Area
What they said:"The proposed development has been in our opinion aligned and designed along with our architect with the utmost respect to the Stratton Audley conservation area appraisal especially around views to from the conservation area."
Why it's misleading: Both the Planning Statement and the Design and Access Statement omit the most relevant passage of the Conservation Area Appraisal, which says open spaces like this paddock “make a strong contribution to the character of the conservation area” and “development of these sites should be resisted.” The Appraisal identifies only two notable views to open countryside, including “views over the fields north of Hall Farm” — the application site itself — yet this key view is not identified or assessed anywhere in their submissions. Claiming “utmost respect” to the Appraisal and its views while omitting its most damaging statement and ignoring the critical key view is materially misleading.
We Have Assessed the Conservation Area and Worked Hard to Preserve Views
What they said: "We have assessed that to the point that we've taken viewpoints from the outer perimeter of the hall in question and its views towards the open hunting site... our architects and our assessors have designed the proposed sidelines in such a way that the views that are currently enjoyed by the hall are not obstructed by our proposed development... The conservation area does speak a lot of the views from the front out towards Kent Cottage and we have worked very hard to try and make sure that those views are maintained."
Why it's misleading: The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies only two notable views from within the village out to open countryside. One of these is specifically "views over the fields north of Hall Farm" — the application site forms a direct part of this view. This key view is not identified, referenced, or assessed anywhere in the submitted Planning Statement or Design and Access Statement. The applicant's focus on views from the Hall to Kent Cottage is a narrow, self-selected viewpoint that conveniently ignores the only two views the Conservation Area Appraisal formally identifies.
The Architect Has Concluded That Separation Distances Are Acceptable
What they said:"The architect has looked at distances and has concluded that what we're proposing is acceptable in terms of build distances within the design guide for Cherwell District Council."
Why it's misleading: The Planning Statement claims "minimum separation distances are achieved" but provides no policy reference, no measurements, and no supporting evidence to substantiate this. The Cherwell Residential Design SPD requires a minimum back-to-back separation of 22m and requires private amenity space not to be overlooked. The proposed layout creates a front-to-back relationship between new and existing homes — a scenario so unusual that the SPD does not even address it, which in itself demonstrates how inappropriate the layout is. No evidence was produced at the meeting to back up the architect's conclusion - Fortis and Oriel simply said they hadn’t brought a scale rule with them.
Boundary Treatments Will Be Dealt With By Condition
What they said:"With regard to any screening boundary treatments, again that's a detailed application and it's quite often a condition."
Why it's misleading: This sidesteps an irresolvable problem. There is no condition that can fix the boundary treatment dilemma at the northern boundary: retaining the post-and-rail fencing to existing homes gives no privacy screening from incoming development; replacing it with solid fencing destroys the open countryside outlook valued by existing residents (and in any case, the existing residents own this boundary so would be unlikely to agree to it’s replacement); creating a new set-back boundary creates an unowned no-man's land. Every possible outcome causes unacceptable harm. Deferring this to a planning condition is not a solution — it is a deflection. Planning conditions cannot be used to make an inherently unacceptable development acceptable.
The Application Delivers Biodiversity Net Gain
What they said:"Any new development in the UK… is required to deliver a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain." “Within our application… we’ve included an ecology impact assessment report… it confirms that within the proposal, we can deliver the biodiversity net gain on site through the introduction of native hedgerows, tree planting and other ecological matters on site."
Why it's misleading: The BNG metric submitted with the application shows the scheme achieves only 0.98% BNG, far below the mandatory 10% requirement. The applicant has not identified additional measures or secured off-site units to bridge this shortfall. There is no evidence that 10% can be delivered “on site”. The baseline survey was carried out in January, with the paddock grazed by a horse, artificially depressing habitat value; wildflower growth now present on site was not recorded. Presenting the report as confirmation that they “can deliver the biodiversity net gain on site” directly contradicts the figures in their own metric.
The Application Isn’t About the Detail… Yet
What they said:"The application… is an outline planning permission with all matters reserved apart from access… therefore the application is not about any detail yet. It’s all simply around whether the principle of development is acceptable in planning terms."
Why it's misleading: While technically correct on process, this is used to deflect legitimate concerns about layout, amenity, and design by implying these are only “detail” issues. In fact, our assessment shows that principle and detail are intertwined here: the only way to achieve access, refuse collection, separation distances, is via a highly contrived layout that itself demonstrates the site is unsuitable in principle.
There Are Horses on There at the Moment
What they said:"There's a shelter on there, there are horses at the moment.”
Why it's incorrect and concerning: Fortis and Oriel Homes claim at the meeting that there are still horses on the paddock at the moment. Yet, on the application form completed by Ben and Joost, it claims that the paddock has been vacant since 27 February 2026 (the day they uploaded the planning application to the planning portal). Neither are correct. First, there was only one pony. Second, the pony did not leave the paddock until 14 March. This further highlights a lack of attention to detail by the applicant and raises questions of how well they really know the site and Stratton Audley.