FRESH details have reignited a housing battle between developers and villagers.

The saga of homes in Sutton Courtenay rumbles on after developer Redrow submitted more information about its 200-home development off Hobbyhorse Lane.

Vale of White Horse district councillors refused the proposed development earlier this year, siding with residents who were concerned about traffic, narrow access and the location's proximity to landfill.

The planning committee's shock decision defied the council's own local plan and sparked a 'cooling off period', allowing Redrow to address concerns and return to the table armed with more evidence.

Redrow has since submitted transport assessments that it claims proves the plan is 'technically robust', but residents have responded with a fresh flurry of counter-arguments.

In a letter submitted to the council, planning consultants working for Redrow said: "The information retains our position that the application, as presented to committee, has no technical objections from consultees.

"The application as presented to committee was technically robust and the submitted documentation provides further robustness."

Redrow has agreed to widen an access road from four metres to five metres in a bid to appease concerns about access, and listed results of a traffic survey in response to worries about congestion.

Transport planners at Vectos, working for Redrow, said capacity at Culham Bridge had been cited by Oxfordshire County Council as a 'serious issue' that needed addressing.

Their report noted this request was 'completely at odds with the original planning committee report.'

Traffic was monitored on roads surrounding the development on March 16, which Vectos said 'unequivocally demonstrates that there is an alternative, more reliable and quicker route to Abingdon' other than the bridge.

It suggested travelling via Drayton Road was a suitable alternative to Culham Bridge.

Vectos proposed that Redrow contributes £50,000 towards a bus pass or cycle voucher for residents of the development, plus £100,000 towards 'school and personalised travel planning'.

No further information has been submitted yet about methane gas, which councillors worried would drift over from an adjacent landfill to the new homes.

Teresa White, who lives in Hobbyhorse Lane, wrote on the application: "None of this changes the situation regarding the methane gas, which was a huge factor for the decision for it to be rejected at the last meeting."

Anne Morgan-Smith, who is among villagers leading the campaign against the homes, said the new evidence 'shows a complete lack of understanding of transport issues affecting the village'.

Responding to planning consultation online, she noted the traffic survey was 'undertaken on a single day...impacted significantly by temporary traffic lights'.

Echoing concerns, Georgia Broome wrote: "The right decision was made at the last hearing. Why the cooling off period and why spend more money to prove what we already know?"

A date for the council's revised decision has not yet been set.