RURAL housing developments could be built with more car parking spaces after congestion “conflict” in villages.

Oxfordshire County Council has devised a new policy recommending how many spaces planners should permit for new developments.

It recommends extra spaces on the street, or in shared car parks, on top of those designated to specific homes.

The policy says: “In recent years there has been a growing feeling that there is insufficient parking provided in new residential developments.”

Street parking “often causes conflict and access problems”, it adds.

Rodney Rose, the council’s cabinet member for transport, said: “We have had complaints from rural district councils that there isn’t enough parking being given.

“Developers would go for the bare minimum, then try and get as many houses on the plot as possible.”

A lack of bus services meant some had no choice but to use cars, he said.

The Government handed parking policy power to local councils in January.

The county’s new policy will guide district councils in deciding planning applications. Its previous version recommended one space for properties up to two bedrooms in “larger towns”. Bigger properties got extra spaces “on merit”.

For other areas, it recommended one space for one bedroom, two spaces for two or three bedrooms and two or more on merit for four bedroom homes and bigger.

The new policy proposes extra space on top of those allocated to each property.

It does not cover Oxford and urban parts of Cherwell including Kidlington, Bicester and Banbury, where requirements will be lower.

The policy also urges district councils to put in planning conditions demanding garages in new developments be used for parking.

But Libby Hartwell, clerk of Stonesfield Parish Council, said including the garage as a parking space is understandable but impractical.

Bryan Gouldman, 69, has first-hand experience of a lack of spaces at his home in Songers Close, Dean Court. The street got housing association cash in April to increase parking spaces from four to 14.

Mr Gouldman said of the policy: “I am all for it. It is essential, especially where you have problems where you can’t turn around.”