Latest News

King’s Sutton housing needs surveys: results now in.

Around 100 King’s Sutton residents attended the August showcase for Rectory Homes’ proposed new housing development on the outskirts of the village. Each of the attendees had the opportunity to provide their thoughts on the proposal, but that left a lot of people who didn’t get that opportunity. For that reason, King’s Sutton Parish Council decided to organise its own online survey to give every parish resident a chance to have their voice heard.

The results of both surveys are now in and they’re set out below.

The Rectory Homes Survey

Planning manager at Rectory Homes, Steven Kerry, provided the parish council with the results of his company’s survey on October 13. Mr Kerry says that the majority of the 39 responses to the company’s survey show “there is support for new housing in the village, albeit not necessarily on this site. However, no responses suggested any other locations [or] sites in the village that could be developed for this housing. The vast majority of responses cited a need for affordable housing and entry level housing for first time buyers in the village, with a slightly lesser number stating a desire for a general mix of housing to be provided.”

Rectory Homes Survey Results Summary

• 39 responses received (36 paper forms and three emails)
• 19 support the idea of new housing in the village (49%)
• 18 oppose the idea of new housing in the village (46%)
• 2 undecided (5%).
• 14 support the idea of 30 houses on this site (36%)
• 23 oppose the idea of 30 houses on this site (59%)
• 2 undecided (5%)

Type of housing needed in the village

• Affordable housing (23%)
• Entry level housing / first time buyer housing (18%)
• A general mix of housing (10%)
• Small houses (8%)
• Shared ownership properties (5%)
• Larger family homes (5%)
• Rental properties (3%)
• Bungalows (3%)

Key issues/concerns

• Flooding/drainage (35%)
• Traffic impact (24%)
• Pressure on schools/capacity (11%)
• Suitability of site access (8%)
• Lack of bus service (5%)
• Light pollution (3%)
• General lack of/pressure on existing infrastructure (3%)

The Parish Council’s Online Survey Results

Summary

• 210 responses received
• 46 support the idea of a new housing development in the village (21.9%)
• 164 oppose the idea of a new housing development in the village (78.1%)

Prompted reasons given for opposing a new housing development in the village (169 respondents)

• 94 Said there is already enough (or too much) housing in this area (55.6%)
• 125 said more housing would mean the village losing even more of its rural character (74%)
• 126 said more house building on open countryside would have a negative impact on the environment (74.6%)
• 128 said more housing in the village of King’s Sutton might increase the risk of flooding in the area (75.7%)
• 137 said more housing in King’s Sutton would only add to the village’s existing traffic problems (81.1%)
• 112 said more housing in the area would put too much strain on the village school and preschool (66.3%)
• 121 said more and more housing would end up turning King’s Sutton into a suburb of Banbury (71.6%)
• 126 said more housing in King’s Sutton would risk overloading an already inadequate sewage system (74.6%)

Unprompted reasons given by individual respondents for opposing a new housing development in the village

• All village amenities will be under strain and crowded including the recreation ground. More valuable green land and trees destroyed and more litter and pollution.
• Decrease in wildlife and birds in this locality. I've noticed a huge drop in the variety of birds visiting my garden since the houses were built on Banbury Road and Little Rushes.
• Development outside the village boundaries sets a bad precedent.
• I am also concerned for the local wildlife such as the newts.
• I don’t feel it would add pressure to school or benefit it. Most of the children who live I. Little rushes do not attend king Sutton school, so the chances are new housing will not create lots more pupils.
• I have lived in the village all my life. These housing developments are spoiling a lovely village.
• It would be the thin end of the wedge. Outside village confine.
• It’s right on the back of my house and absolutely ruins our outlook across beautiful countryside and drastically devalues the value of my property. I’m absolutely devastated.
• Lack of a bus service means each new house needs at least a further two cars.
• More housing in village locations, distant from the majority of local amenities, encourages more regular car use, to the detriment of the environment.
• No public transport I mean buses, not enough village amenities for more housing.
• No real objection to another housing estate but would perhaps need a bigger school, and more amenities. Perhaps the bus service may return for villagers!
• No work opportunities in the village so any new residents are going to need to commute to their place of work so goes against climate change.
• Other (better) options are available elsewhere.
• Particular risk re extra traffic crossing children's school routes.
• Road dangers (speeding), noise, light pollution.
• Roads are already dangerous enough without an increase in traffic. Need to sort out infrastructure before building new houses.
• The general infrastructure is not sufficient. There are already too many cars driving through the Timms estate. Far too many cars entering and leaving Hampton Drive drive too fast and carelessly. Speed humps needed already. Has been raised as a concern but disregarded. This is a major concern for everyone, especially children, infirm and parents with prams.
• The proposed development provides no benefit what-so-ever to the community and seems only to serve to benefit the landowner and developer.
• The proposed housing development feed into an already congested road and area.
• Water and sewage issues.
• With only one village shop it will put strain on their supply chain.
• Within ten minutes of KS there are two towns with plenty of planned developments - so much - that developers are not fully starting due to limited demand - Banbury and Brackley. KS would sell for the very reason this and further developments should be stopped - as it has village character. Like an historic building, once torn down, it can't be regained. The village is vibrant without further development, and capacity exists close by for those with a relationship to KS.

Prompted reasons given for supporting a new housing development in the village (92 respondents)

• 29 said there is not enough suitable accommodation for the local elderly in this area (31.5%)
• 64 said there is not enough suitable accommodation for local young people in this area (69.6%)
• 64 said we need to provide additional affordable homes for local people who are less well off (69.6%)
• 38 said to remain viable, the village school and preschool need more children living in the area (41.3%)
• 38 said to remain viable, our shops, pubs and other local businesses need more people living here (41.3%)
• 50 said without more housing in the area, we risk losing our railway station due to a lack of local users (54.3%)
• 38 said more housing here might force Thames Water to improve its inadequate sewage system (41.3%)

Unprompted reasons given by individual respondents for supporting a new housing development in the village

• A regular bus service or book-a-bus might become viable.
• Locals need more social housing, private rentals and buying is way out of most people’s budgets.
• Natural progression and sympathetic developments will improve the village and help keep services viable.
• Not enough accessible housing.
• Overall national need for housing.
• School provision would be inadequate for more housing.
• The village needs more investment in roads even a bypass as traffic in all areas of the village is overwhelming at times, I think Astrop Road back road to Banbury would be better for development.
• There is not enough housing for all demographics, we looked for four months before something suitable came up!
• There is not enough suitable accommodation for the local elderly in this area.
• This should not simply be a question of whether King’s Sutton needs it, but a wider question of how well served villages like King’s Sutton can contribute to regional and national housing need.

Type of housing that should be built in King’s Sutton (109 respondents)

• 37 wanted bungalows (33.9%)
• 29 wanted terraced houses (26.6%)
• 50 wanted semi-detached houses (45.96%)
• 33 wanted detached houses (30.36%)
• 35 wanted flats, studio apartments and/or retirement apartments (32.16%)
• 64 wanted starter homes (58.76%)

NB: Percentages may not tally due to rounding.