Driving through the small town of Deddington the other day, I was struck (not physically) by a large sign on the wall of a very expensive-looking house as you enter Deddington from the east: "KEEP DEDDINGTON RURAL!"
Now Deddington has always struck me as rather rural - you only go through it as a cut-through between the M40 and Chipping Norton - and indeed it's a good 10 miles from the nearest Waitrose (in Brackley), which is my personal measure of ruralness. But clearly it's in imminent danger of un-rurality, so I did a little Googling. Horror of horrors, Pegasus Group is planning to built 85 houses on a 9.5 acre site in Deddington:
If you feel our village should grow in a more sustainable way, responsive to local needs, with 3-5 new houses a year over the next 18 years as contemplated by the new Local Plan, please make your views known by emailing CDC Planning Department (ref. 13/00301/OUT)Deddingon parish has a population of 2,100; this probably translates to about 1000 houses, of which probably 400 or so are in Deddington; you're looking at a ~20% growth in the town itself. This is hardly the end of the world. Looking at the satellite view of Deddington, with the area for development being the wedge-shaped field above Hempton Road and to the left of Banbury Road this doesn't look as if it's going to change the town beyond all recognition. If you zoom out a little, it's very apparent just how much green space is around Deddington. Building around there is a no-brainer. In fact, the tedious stretch of road between Deddington and Hempton to the west could also useful be built on, joining them up into one entity. (Now I'm going to get letter bombs through the post from the Deddington Urban Liberation League.)
Arguing for less than 1% growth per annum so that it takes ~18 years to increase town size by 20% instead of 1 year is such painful NIMBYism that deserves at least contemptuous dismissal, and better yet an active increase in the amount of planning permission granted. After all, if the town is going to get so het up about such a modest development, surely the marginal additional indignation for e.g. a doubling of house numbers would be rather small?