Hundreds of people have appealed against the way Cherwell District Council reached its decision to build 1,585 houses on the edge of Bicester.

More than 400 people have signed a petition that claims the council should have considered 444 letters of objection it received when it decided to designate the former RAF Bicester site as a conservation area.

The decision, taken more than two years ago, meant 1,500 houses due to be built on the airfield were instead allocated to land between Bicester and Chesterton - a development known as the South West Option.

Chesterton resident David Chapman, a member of campaign group South West Objection Team, claims the basis of the original ruling was flawed, and is now urging the council to reconsider.

The council denies any wrongdoing and was cleared by the local government ombudsman in September 2004.

But Lt Col Chapman, who quit as parish council chairman over the issue in December, said he was not giving up. He said: "Some 444 letters went into the council during the consultation period. They then managed to put them in the wrong pile - I just don't understand how they could push it into a conservation area with so many objections. I would like to see them rescind the decision."

"There is tremendous support for this appeal. People really are very, very upset."

Lt Col Chapman has now handed the 416-signature petition to Cherwell District Council.

When the letters were written, Cherwell District Council was conducting two consultations - one on the local plan, and one on the conservation area proposal.

Cherwell said it considered the letters under the local plan consultation, when Lt Col Chapman believed they should have been considered under the conservation area one.

District council leader Barry Wood said: "Lt Col Chapman was party to a letter writing and lobbying campaign asking us not to designate the RAF camp as a conservation area.

"He realised that would reduce the chance of houses on the site and so increase the chances of houses in his backyard instead.

"We were obliged to consider only historic, architectural and landscape value aspects.

"I am confident the council did everything correctly, and so is the ombudsman.

"I will write to the petitioners to explain. Naturally, I am concerned that some of our residents think we are undemocratic, but I suspect that is because they disagree with fields near them being zoned for houses.

"You simply cannot please all the people all the time."

At the time, the ombudsman concluded: "Members were well aware of all relevant material planning considerations when they reached their verdict, and that leaves me with no grounds on which to challenge the merits of that decision."