​​My Response to the Kilkenny Farm Development Proposal (Planning Application 25/00487/OUT) – Brize Norton, the Kilkenny Farm Development Proposal

​

This proposal outlines the construction of up to 350 new homes, alongside associated infrastructure, on land south of Burford Road, Brize Norton. While the need for housing is understood and supported in principle, this application, in its current form, raises several significant concerns about the lack of infrastructure, the impact on public services, and whether the housing mix genuinely reflects local need.

​

The following response is structured into five key points, each addressing a core issue with the proposal and offering a constructive, community-focused perspective on what responsible development should look like in this area.

​

Point 1: The existing infrastructure is under immense pressure.

Quote: “This development cannot be accommodated without significant off-site reinforcement works.”

Summarise: The basic infrastructure — including utilities and drainage — is already overstretched. Adding a large-scale housing development without first resolving these issues risks serious disruption for existing residents. Infrastructure should come first, not as an afterthought.

​

Point 2: Core public services are not in a position to absorb further pressure.

Quote: “Local services are already operating at or beyond their limits.”

Summarise: Healthcare, education, and roads are struggling to meet current demand. Without clearly secured and timely upgrades, any new development would only deepen the strain. Communities can’t thrive when essential services are pushed beyond breaking point.

​

Point 3: Infrastructure must be delivered alongside development — not lag behind it.

Quote: “Development must be coordinated with infrastructure. That coordination is currently missing.”

Summarise: Development should support the community, not overrun it. Planning must ensure that roads, schools, healthcare services, and utilities are delivered in tandem with new housing — not left to catch up years later. This proposal lacks a clear phasing plan to ensure infrastructure comes first.

​

Point 4: The housing mix must meet real local need — and this one doesn’t.

Quote: “There is a clear demand for smaller, more affordable homes that allow people to stay close to family, work, and their community.”

Summarise: The development proposes:

• 43 one-bedroom homes (12%)

• 94 two-bedroom homes (27%)

• 146 three-bedroom homes (42%)

• 67 four/five-bedroom homes (19%)

This means over 60% of homes are three-bedroom or larger, while only 12% are one-bedroom. That does not reflect the area’s real housing need.

​

There should be more emphasis on smaller houses — not just flats — that support first-time buyers, key workers, and older residents looking to downsize. These homes would not only serve their new occupants but also free up larger homes for families by offering suitable downsizing options. This is a sustainable, logical approach to housing — one that benefits the whole chain.

​

While planning decisions do not sit with county councillors, I would not support this proposal in its current form, and I would actively raise concerns on behalf of residents. I believe housing should be built for people — not profit — and that this proposal has the balance wrong.

​

Point 5: There is no clear commitment to genuine social housing.

Quote: “The exact tenure mix will be negotiated at a later stage.”

Summarise: The proposal includes 122 affordable homes (35% of total) — but there is no confirmed breakdown of how many will be made available as social rented housing through councils or housing associations.

Without a clear commitment to deliver genuinely affordable rental homes for those most in need — particularly those on housing waiting lists — this proposal risks failing the very people most in need of support. Housing for shared ownership and 'affordable rent' is important, but social rent must not be an afterthought. It should be a core pillar of any major housing scheme.

​

Conclusion

This application is not strong enough. It does not provide sufficient infrastructure, does not reflect the housing mix our area actually needs, and fails to secure the type of affordable housing that could truly support those who need it most.

Development should be done with the community — not at the expense of it. Until there are firm, front-loaded commitments on infrastructure, public services, and a fairer housing mix, this proposal should not proceed.