Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.
Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?What is the Public Notice Portal?
The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.
Search the Public Notice PortalA High Court judge has sent a refused major warehouse development plan near the M40 back to the planning inspector who "erred in law".
Plans for the development were submitted by Greystoke CB for land near Junction 10 at Baynards Green near Bicester in Oxfordshire, which could generate some 1,838 full-time permanent jobs.
The scheme for 10 new buildings, which would cover 140,000sqm of agricultural land, was met with major initial opposition before Cherwell District Council rejected it in March 2024, with no less than 15 reasons given for refusal.
Patrick Hanna, a Government planning inspector, conducted an inquiry, which took place over nine days in February 2025, before being dismissed in July 2025.
One of the primary reasons for the refusal was that the developer failed to prove the highway improvements would adequately offset the adverse effect the scheme would have on the highway network, particularly the A422 Hennerf Way and Southam Road.
In mitigation, the developer proposed a strategic transport contribution of almost £908,000, originally requested by Oxfordshire County Council.
The inspector considered the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) when making his decision, which states a development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable highway safety risk or severe traffic impacts.
In a judgement handed down by High Court judge Jason Coppel, he ruled the decision was unlawful and ordered the decision be quashed.
Read more
Green light given for one of the UK's biggest data centres near M40
Refurbishments to iconic Oxfordshire town clock delayed due to damage
Man detained after major train delays between Didcot and Reading
He noted the inspector had already concluded that the development would not create an unacceptable highway safety risk and that its impact on the road network would be "significant" but not "severe".
Mr Coppel said the inspector "acted in a procedurally unfair manner when he rejected the council's case" by misinterpreting or misapplying NPPF.
He said: "In the usual way so far as the NPPF is concerned, the Inspector would not have been bound by 116 and could have departed from it if there was a rational planning basis on which to do so.
"In the event, however, he erred in law by failing to consider the effect of §116 at the planning balance stage of his analysis."
The judge also agreed with Greystoke's argument that the inspector failed to properly take biodiversity net gain into account when assessing the planning balance.
The inspector had previously found the development would deliver a 23 per cent biodiversity net gain for habitats and 10 per cent for hedgerows and tree lines.
Mr Justice Coppel found that while the inspector referred to this in his decision, he did not appear to factor it into his overall assessment of whether the benefits outweighed the harms.
The court ordered the appeal refusal decision to be quashed, meaning the appeal will now have to be reconsidered by the Planning Inspectorate.
The developer will have the opportunity to make submissions on the effect of this judgement and the implications of NPPF for the planning balance.
Share