The meeting at Bloxham Church to explain the situation regarding the proposed new development emphasized that simply claiming Bloxham had already had more than its share of new houses (even if it has) would carry no weight in planning decisions unless one can demonstrate a lack of need / demand.

What will count is referring to planning policies that the proposal contravenes.
E.g. If traffic is your issue – back up your objection by supporting your evidence by referring to a traffic policy.
If flooding is your issue – quote a flooding policy likewise refer to a planning policy upon flooding.
Being able to walk and cycle to village facilities is a high priority nowadays. How easy is that?

The meeting offered this sheet that you can download from here as a summary of some policies that people may want to refer to in their responses. (Now also included below the graphic.)
Don’t forget – responses need to be with Cherwell Planning Department by 9th October at latest.

• • Via email to samantha.taylor@cherwell-dc.gov.uk
  • Via Cherwell DC Planning Portal https://planningregister.cherwell.gov.uk/Planning/Display/19/01705/OUT You’ll then need to click the blue “Comments on this Application tab.

Planning application: 19/01705/OUT
Here are some policies to consider. Which ones matter to you?  (BL policies come from the Bloxham Neighbourhood Development Plan, ESD policies and Policy Villages 2 are Cherwell Local Plan policies and NPPF paragraphs come from  the National Planning Policy framework)
BL1 Development of approximately 85 dwellings is supported to the south of Milton Road as shown on Map 1 subject to compliance with the other policies of this Plan.
BL2 In addition to the major development set out in Policy BL1 the following sustainable development will also be permitted: conversion, infilling and minor development within the existing built up limits provided that such additional developments are small in scale typically, but not exclusively, five dwellings or fewer.
Clearly this proposal contravenes BL1/BL2.
 Cherwell Local Plan part 1: Policy Villages 2 specifies a total of 750 homes will be delivered at Category A villages, of which Bloxham is one. Cherwell already has plans covering the 750. It also has a full 5-year housing supply fulfilling its requirements to support government house-building.
BL7 Development should not increase flood risk.
The site includes a flood area that spreads onto the Rec, which has often flooded in that corner. Although Gladman proposes measures to prevent flooding, these are only pipe-dreams since they are not the builders.
BL9 All development shall where appropriate: …(c) Ensure that the impact of any additional traffic likely to be generated by the development has been satisfactorily mitigated and will not adversely affect the highway network; (d) For new housing developments, ensure that a sufficient supply of local primary school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new residents

Traffic volumes are already causing issues on the A321 through Bloxham. Adding another 150+ cars will exacerbate the problem further. In addition the junction directly onto the A361 at a particularly dangerous area where there have been three major crashes this year makes the road even more dangerous. Also, the Bloxham Primary School is full, and cannot be expanded further.
BL11 All development shall be encouraged to respect the local character and the historic and natural assets of the area…
It should: …(c) Make a positive contribution to the character of Bloxham and its rural feel; …(f) Preserve existing areas of open space and take every available opportunity to create new open space to help retain rural character; …(i) Take opportunities to protect and wherever possible enhance biodiversity and habitats.
Currently the entrance to the village from South Newington shows the Church spire with the green fields leading to the Rec on the left. The proposal removes the rural nature by overlaying it with housing. In addition),surrounding the Recreation ground with housing turns it from a rural open space into an urban park. Also, placing a residential development adjacent to a registered  Nature Reserve (also a Cherwell District Wildlife Site) will cause harm to the wildlife and have a heavy impact on the inhabitants in this rare wet woodland area.
BL12 (b) All development shall demonstrate that it does not result in harm to the rural or heritage character of the village. This will include consideration of the impact of the development on: (II)The open character of the five amenity green spaces named and identified on Map 3.
(III)The key features of the views from, and the tranquility of, public rights of way within the Parish.

With regard to (II) and (III), enclosing the Rec with housing removes the open, rural nature of the space and impacts the views from the local PROWs.

ESD10 …Development which would result in damage to or loss of biodiversity…will not be permitted unless the benefits of development clearly outweigh tthe harm it would cause to the site

The proposal places a residential development adjacent to the registered Slade nature reserve and wildlife site.

ESD13 … Proposals will not be permitted if they would: cause undue visual intrusion into the open countryside…be inconsistent with local character… impact on areas judged to have a high level of tranquillity.

The Rec is currently an open space with rural views, forming the boundary between the edge of the village and the open countryside. Surrounding it with houses makes it nothing more than another urban park.

NPPF para 84: …it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads…

Traffic is at capacity at the South Newington roundabout with no feasible way to increase it according to OCC. In addition, speed coming into Bloxham from South Newington will make the new junction dangerous, and putting 30mph roundels on the road is not going to help.
NPPF 94: It is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.

The Bloxham Primary School is at capacity and there is no scope for expansion.
NPPF 108(c): In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: …
c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

OCC has already stated that there are no feasible ways to increase capacity of the South Newington roundabout, which is at capacity. Dragons teeth and a 30mph roundel are unlikely to mitigate the dangerous T junction onto the A361.
NPPF para 122: Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: … (c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement

The primary school is full, the services are full and the A361 through Bloxham is very congested.
NPPF para 174: To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should:
a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity56; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation57; and
b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.

The Slade, a Cherwell District Wildlife Site and registered Nature Reserve, will be subject to adjacent residential occupation to the detriment of local and rare wildlife-rich habitats.