Road plan shock for villagers

8:55am Thursday 4th January 2007

Comments (2)   Have your say »

Angry villagers have been told plans for a Didcot bypass could see their homes bulldozed.

The proposals for a new bypass to the south of Didcot - which would serve thousands of new homes planned for the town over the next two decades - have outraged villagers in East Hagbourne.

Proposals for the road were released just days before Christmas - along with the bombshell that some homes on New Road could face demolition.

But residents say even if the road never materialises, their homes have already been blighted.

Letters from South Oxfordshire District Council, explaining the proposals, arrived at 52 New Road homes just days before Christmas.

Resident Ann Stevens said: "What are our houses worth now? We just don't know."

She said new homes should be built to the north of the town and served by enhancing the existing northern perimeter road.

Resident Derek Button said: "They have drawn up proposals without a word to the parish council or the residents.

"It blighted my Christmas with the timing of the announcement just four days before."

Villagers are also angry the bypass idea was not included in a series of housing consultations, organised by South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse district councils, and Oxfordshire County Council, in November.

East Hagbourne Parish Council chairman Monica Lawson said the village recreation ground, along with a planned £800,000 sports pavilion, was also under threat.

District council cabinet member for planning John Cotton said residents and parish councillors had been informed at the earliest stage.

He said: "It's an idea at the moment and we are flagging it up with them at this stage."

He said further work on the proposal would not take place until after the South East Plan public inquiry had been completed and the council had a clearer picture of the housing numbers for Didcot.

He added: "If someone has evidence their house is blighted I would be keen to look at it because, obviously, that would be unfair."