PLANS to build 900 homes on land between Barton and Marston could seriously affect ring-road traffic and green land around Oxford.

The warning came as Oxford city councillors yesterday agreed to seek an investment partner to deliver a major development on council-owned land on the edge of the city.

And the council executive declared that it was prepared to see a drop in the number of affordable homes in ‘Barton West’, to entice investors.

The costs of providing road access to the development from the A40, extensive community facilities and a new primary school would all add millions to the scheme. The removal of pylons, the ‘undergrounding’ of electricity cables and extensive landfill work would further increase the overall bill.

But with the prospect of grants for social housing fading, the council executive backed the idea of forming a joint venture as the best way to create between 800 and 900 homes.

Ruskin College has said it is ready to offer green land on the other side of the A40 for further housing and to link the new housing development with Northway, making the scheme more viable.

But the idea of developing Ruskin Fields in the college’s Old Headington campus, would be opposed by conservationists.

Residents on both sides of the ring road have also expressed concern about the likely impact of Barton West on the Green Road roundabout and on Headington.

The city council says it is prepared to bring down the ratio of affordable homes from 50 to 40 per cent. The only alternative way to attract investors would be to create a retail centre anchored by a supermarket, drastically reducing housing, councillors were warned.

Executive member John Tanner said: “This would be a lovely place to live. It will continue the Oxford tradition of living next to green space and will be an extension of Oxford, not just a case of fitting in as many houses as we can.”

The importance of the Barton West scheme has increased after the stalling of the scheme for 4,000 homes south of Grenoble Road.

City council leader Bob Price said: “There are currently 6,000 families on the waiting list for social housing. The development in Barton is important because so many other ones have fallen through. It is crucial. Any ways to improve on this 40 per cent affordable house figure will be tried.”

The executive discussed transport issues and it was decided planners should introduce a junction on the A40, with secondary access through Barton.

Sarah King, chairman of the Friends of Old Headington, said that, after years of delay, the council was suddenly “forcing the pace”.

She said: “The (Barton) site is adjacent to our conservation area, but not in it. It would be a difficult site to develop. It has an electricity sub-station in the middle, it has a recreation ground and allotments at the east end.

“Access is a significant issue. Obviously it can connect to Barton, but you would have to create a decent access for people going into it from across the ring road. Things have gradually improved with the ‘hamburger’ roundabout at Headington, but it cannot possibly cope with the traffic produced by nearly 1,000 new homes.”

The principal of Ruskin College, Prof Audrey Mullender, said Ruskin Fields were in a key location to allow pedestrian, bus or cycle links between the new development and Northway.

But she said the green land could also be used for housing.

She said: “If a balance could be found to ensure that we retain the character of the area with fields and footpaths but include some sympathetic housing development on some of the fields, then a wide range of interests could be served. But there is no plan or agreement.”

Dr Helena Whall, campaign manager for the Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “We believe the Ruskin College land is unsuitable for residential development. Any dwellings on this greenfield site would destroy the openness surrounding Old Headington and significantly affect the character and setting of the conservation area.

“Barton is a problematic site for most uses but subject to safeguards for biodiversity we are not opposed to sensitive and sustainable development.”