MILLIONS of pounds will be ploughed into improving Oxford's roads in the next year as part of a Government deal to build 100,000 homes in the county in exchange for £215m.
The first year of the five-year deal will focus on roads, and has been drawn up by Oxfordshire Growth Board with improvements to Botley Road, the corridor north of Oxford and Access to Headington being prioritised.
Just 414 homes will be built in first year - which begins on April 1 - and 229 affordable units with transport being focused on for the time being.
There will be £3.25m for a Botley Road corridor project - to give buses priority and improve cycle provision and the road condition - and £500,000 will be put towards a study to widen Botley Road rail bridge to facilitate the Oxford Station development and create more rail lines.
Work to explore a congestion-free westbound bus lane on the A40 to the proposed Eynsham Park and Ride will also receiving funding in 2018-19 and a total of £16.5m over the five years.
The 'south east Oxford' corridor, Abingdon Road, Cowley Road and Iffley Road will also undergo a £300,000 study.
Chairman of Oxfordshire Growth Board, Bob Price, said: "This is a significant moment for Oxfordshire.
"Just last month all the districts, the city council and the county council united to seal a deal with Government, and now we are delighted to announce this first year of funding to start delivering the infrastructure residents have been calling for as we continue to prosper and grow as a county."
A further £20m worth of projects for the coming twelve months have yet to be finalised due to ongoing discussions with developers.
The Deal will deliver £215m over a five year-period - £30m a year on infrastructure and a total of £60m on affordable housing.
It backs the county's ambition to plan and support the building of up to 100,000 new homes across Oxfordshire between 2011 and 2031.
Pic Joe Giddens/PA Wire
But campaigners, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have criticised the deal as 'derisory and damaging' and said the housing numbers were too high.
In a letter to the Growth Board, housing minister Dominic Raab admitted the homes planned for the county were 'well in excess' of the number required but was pleased with the deal.
He said: "I welcome your plans to deliver 100,000 homes by 2031 - well in excess of the published figures in our draft NPPF published last week.
He added: "I would like to thank you for the significant amount of work done to get to this stage and for the collaborative approach your councils have demonstrated when working with my officials.
"I look forward to a productive and on-going relationship between Oxfordshire and Government, as we continue to work together to build the homes this country needs."
Despite the £150m infrastructure boost - the Growth Board put the total cost for what was needed at £274m but hoped for further Government funding.
CPRE Oxon director, Helen Marshall, said the housing needed in the county was closer to 60,000 and urged local authorities to reject the deal.
She said: "In return for providing 40,000 houses Oxfordshire doesn't need, we get a fraction of the money required to provide infrastructure for them.
"Our local councils should do the honourable thing, reject the deal and cut housing targets to reflect Oxfordshire's actual need.
"This would mean they could also abandon the ill-conceived schemes between Oxford and Kidlington and at Culham."
The Access to Headington package of transport improvements was postponed earlier this year after Oxfordshire County Council said it needed to 'look again' at the cost.
The scheme has caused prolonged disruption on the roads and changes will now be made following public intervention.
County councillor for the area, Roz Smith, said residents had been listened to and was pleased the £3.25m had been found and that it would improve cycling provision in the area.
But she was shocked to hear the announcement a week before the next Growth Board meeting where the deal will be discussed.
She said: "It smacks of decisions being made in back rooms, what if people wanted to plead against a particular part of the project at the meeting next week.
"It's just a bizarre way of doing it, it's not very transparent."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel