Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Wednesday 5 November 2025, 2:00pm

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday, 5th November 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield

2 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

4 Public Questions

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield

6 Cotswold District Council Local Plan Review Preferred Options November 2025

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Tony Slater
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Michael Vann
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Tony Slater
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Andrew Brown, Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Andrew Brown, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:02

Hello, hello. We're going to start the meeting a few seconds late.

And I'm very pleased to see on the screen we've got Mike Evermy and

Juliet Layton joining us as well too.

So a warm welcome to everyone, including any members of the public,

whether in person or watching online, to this additional earned -esque

committee meeting, which is being held in the hybrid format with some

members in the chamber and others joining us through the magic of technology. So this

is Mike over me and Julia who couldn't be with us today because they had commitments

at a conference north of here this morning. I'm not expecting this to be a long meeting,

but nevertheless it is a really important one, as we shall be looking again at the preferred

options for the local plan review. I want to acknowledge and welcome the cabinet members

and officers who will be going through their reports,

to all the members of the committee who have made time

to come to this extra meeting and for their substitutes

where they have been substituted.

And we will now go forward with the meeting, sorry.

Well, I've done the housekeeping,

so that's good news.

Nobody needs to hear about that again.

If anybody wishes to film the proceedings, this is permitted, provided it does not disrupt the proceedings.

Could we move forward to the apologies?

1 Apologies

We've had apologies from Councillors John Waring, David Cunningham, Joe Harris and Nick Bridges.

Councillor Ray Brasington is substituting for Councillor Nick Bridges.

Councillor Ian Watson is substituting for Councillor Joe Harris.

and Councillor David Fowles is substituting for Councillor David Cunningham.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:01

Thank you for that. Do we have any declarations of interest on items due to be discussed at this meeting?

2 Substitute Members

Do we have any public questions? I'm looking to see that we do have a member of the public here.

Would you like to present a question?

4 Public Questions

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:47

Thank you for coming today.

David, would you like to give us your name?

You have two minutes for your question, and you will have

a supplementary.

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:02:58

David Hindle from Turpbury, and it's all about the discussion

today, so nothing other than that.

So I was pleased to see that the timeline for the Reg 18 to have

been kept to, I had no major issue with the original

consultation document, including what I regard as an essential

raising of density to maximise residential supply to meet new

residential need.

When asking questions regarding the proposed additions relating

to the post -2043 for the strategic sites, please can

someone ask the planners why, other than for Driffield, they

compelled to provide indicative numbers for CDC area strategic sites post 2043.

That will be a hostage to fortune as a new mayoral area will

produce the broad spatial development strategy particularly related to

residential. The new local authority, so not this one, will have to allocate land

for residential development in conformity with the mayor's

spatial development strategy.

So, key question is why is CDC at this, why should CDC

at this stage suggest things for 2043 when it's got absolutely

no power over the decisions which will be made at that time?

A local plan is for 15 to 20 years with there being no suggestion that prior to the adoption

of the local plan the requirement will be changed to 30 years.

So my second question, because it's about the same issue I'll just continue.

Does O &S recognise that as CDC will not exist probably by May 2028, it will not be responsible

for the broad locations for the residential growth in its part of the Mayoral area.

In view of landscape and sustainability constraints within the existing CDC area, it is very unlikely

the existing CDC area would receive, well it's very likely it would receive less than

its proportionate growth in residential in the Mayoral's Mayors Special Development Strategy

and within the local plan produced by the much larger superseding local authority.

Worded that slightly differently, the local plan is actually the one which is produced

by the superseding.

But I hope you get the point.

I don't get it, to be frank.

I really don't get it.

Thank you.

You'd like to...

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:06:04

Thank you very much for coming today.

You've obviously thought deeply about this.

And thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I don't know who would like to come back with an answer now.

He's had two.

Is that two?

Whether Julia or Mike or whether it would be Helen.

Helen is happy to also get a hand up.

Mike would like to go first. Thank you.

Thanks, David, for your question. I think the second question is for ONS committee.

I'll focus on the first one, which I'm sure Helen will give a clear answer on behalf of

our professional officers. But my understanding, and that of Juliet and myself, in terms of

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:06:48

why we are looking to be on 2043, is to enable us next year when we have the Regulation 19

consultation to talk about the infrastructure delivery plan for the whole potential sites,

not just for the infrastructure that might be associated with the amount of housing that could

be delivered up until 2043. And that's why you're having this special meeting this afternoon. But

obviously Helen can add to that or correct anything that I've said if that's not correct.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:07:14

Hello Mike. Sorry, we didn't have our volume up here sufficiently to start off with, so I'm

We've carried the first sort of two thirds of your thing.

We did get the volume for the last bit,

but your first bit, I'm apologies.

We're going forward with it, it'll all be all fine.

So if you could please, and then Helen will come back.

Thank you.

But the first bit, I think I said was the second question

was for you as ONS, for David,

and thank him for his question.

And my understanding is the reason we are beyond 2043

and you're having this meeting today

and we're meeting as a cabinet tomorrow

is in order that we can, when we get to regulation 19 stage next year, properly

plan for the infrastructure for the whole potential sites that might be

allocated and not just that the partial of amounts of the housing that

essentially is associated in or in the numbers in the first report. So we're

talking about beyond 2043. I understand exactly the point David makes about

changes, potentially new councils,

mayoral authority, but we're talking about getting our local plan in place

before any of that happens so that we can control development in the district

up until the new unitary authority gets its own local plan in place,

which it won't have to do probably until 2033.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:08:37

Thank you, and thank you Mike for going over that again.

I have now got Helen Martin.

Thank you.

Officer - 0:08:46

Just to add to what the leader has said in terms of the issue about a spatial development strategy,

and while we might as a council wish to have our local plan now in advance of that,

so yes, at the point that we are a new authority, whatever that looks like,

that authority would take primacy in terms of developing a spatial development strategy.

As the leader has pointed out, they have up to five years to do that after vesting day,

So that would leave us until the first of April 2028, potentially up to five years beyond

that before you have a local plan that covers that area.

Doing this now gives us control and legacy as we move into that new authority and ensures

that we have development that is planned and sustainable with the infrastructure to support

it rather than the situation we find ourselves in increasingly now where you have piecemeal

speculative development that comes forward without that wholesale consideration of this

infrastructure that's required to support the growth.

So whilst the gentleman is correct, in the new world we will have a different hierarchy of plans

and different authorities will have the top order of that plan.

It's very important in the intervening time we do have an up -to -date local plan. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:09:51

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:09:54

Thank you and thank you for making the time to come here. It's appreciated.

I'm wondering if we have any members' questions to go...

No? Well, it's going on from there.

Just to introduce this, I don't know whether it will be

Judith who's going to do the introduction.

6 Cotswold District Council Local Plan Review Preferred Options November 2025

Helen Martin did say that she could step in had you not been

able to get here on time.

But there'll be an extraordinary cabinet meeting held tomorrow,

which will, if there's any recommendations from this O &S,

they will be looked at there.

But we don't, you know, it is, we need to get these things

decided quickly.

I have received many communications from parish

clerks, residents and members expressing concerns about the

timing of the consultation and some of the wording

of its contents.

I've shared these with Mike Evermy, Judith Layton and

Helen Martin to enable them to prepare their responses today.

My vice chair, Angus Jenkinson, has also been kept informed.

Of course, more questions in due course are welcomed from the O &S committee when we

debate the topic after the introduction.

So I wondered, Julia, are you wanting to kick off or how are you going to play it today?

Yeah, I'd just like to say thank you to you all for coming to a special meeting.

And it's not ideal because we are in quite a noisy place.

so I apologise if we've got a bit of background music

and people talking, there are quite a few people around.

But you've come today just to look at that extra element

of this paper, which I'm sure you've all read.

I'm happy to talk about the questions

that have come from parish and towns

about extensions to time, if that's necessary now,

or that might come up later.

We've seen the options for reg 18 before, and so it's really you're just looking at this extension to that paper today.

And I hope everybody's read it and is understanding the reasons we're doing it, which Mike has already confirmed in what he's just said already.

And I'm going to leave it there because it's actually getting quite noisy here.

We might move over as well.

We'll come up on screen and then we'll come back.

Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:12:25

Thank you very much. Now I'm going to ask Helen Martin and Geraldine Le Conte,

who will do a further background information on this report,

and then we'll have the questions afterwards. Thank you.

Officer - 0:12:40

Thank you. Yes, the report is hopefully self -evident, and I'm sure you've read it,

there are a few key points I would like to draw your attention to.

So as it's already been mentioned,

we are now proposing to include indicative numbers that take us beyond the plan

period. So beyond 2043, there are a number of reasons for that.

One is that a lot of the public consultation comments we've had so far,

even though we're not out to formal consultation and lots of the feedback we're

hearing from members is concerns from your communities about things like

infrastructure and how we plan for it to support growth of a certain scale

requires infrastructure of a certain scale.

To have certainty about the delivery of that

means allocating larger strategic sites over longer periods.

The MPPF, so the National Planning Framework,

says where you're looking at larger sites,

you should have a vision for 30 years

and you should understand how they might be brought forward.

So because of that and the need to potentially,

not definitely but potentially allocate sites

within this planned period to allow for development beyond

and the infrastructure of the scale

required to support it, it means that we may, at Regulation 19, be allocating

larger sites. The decision has therefore been taken that if we're going to do that,

the right and fair and transparent thing is to allow our communities and

yourselves to be able to comment on that and consider it and tell us what you

think the issues are at this stage. But what I would point out, and I know it's

clear in the report, but I would reiterate for you that at this point

these are purely indicative numbers, we are still not allocating sites, and this

amendment to provide additional information does not alter the preferred

scenario, scenario five, as to how we think we should go forward to develop.

And the numbers that sit behind it are driven by what we know at this point.

Some of those sites might fall away when we do more due diligence looking at

transport, looking at landscape constraints, etc. Some sites we don't

currently know about through the call of sites may come forward. So this is based

on what we know today as to what might happen as we move forward, but we know that we need

to plan for larger scale development over the longer term.

What I can't tell you as I sit here today is what post 2043 means in terms of timescales,

and as the gentleman who spoke has already pointed out, it will be a different authority

in a different plan period. But what I would remind you is that an example of where this

authority has done it before is the steadings. So in your current local plan, we allocated

a larger site, even though we knew all of that wouldn't come forward in this planned period,

it would travel to a future plan, but what it has done is allow for infrastructure to come forward

in advance of a lot of that development or at certain trigger points, so numbers of units

delivered, and you will have seen it not very far from these offices actually on the ground taking

place. So that is the kind of scenario we're trying to prepare for should we at Reg 19 have

to allocate those larger strategic sites. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:15:35

Thank you for that. Geraldine, was there anything you wish to add at this point?

Public Speaker - 0:15:44

No, thank you. Matt Britton, who is leading on the local

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:15:45

plan, did you have anything you wish to add at this point?

Officer - 0:15:50

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:15:52

No, thank you. Okay. Who has got the first question? David

Can I ask Paul, or the one?

Councillor David Fowles - 0:15:58

Well I too would like to add my concern about the timing of the consultation period.

And I know from what I spoke to yesterday about being a substitute, you said that you

had a dialogue with the leader about that and the importance of maintaining that timetable.

But if we haven't already had the cries from the community, the cries from the community,

you were the usual cries about Christmas which is what I said previously.

Any development, a big one, when it goes to consultation immediately before Christmas

there are cries that you're trying to slip this under the radar, et cetera, et cetera,

et cetera.

And if we can't alter the dates then I suggest or would like to propose that we go into more

detail as to why the importance of these dates has to be stuck.

As far as Mike's concerned, he's made that very clear to the Chairman of this committee,

but I think we need to explain that to residents in more detail personally.

My second concern is over the word indicative.

Page 28, we start to talk about indicative figures.

And I'm not suggesting that we should rewrite this document, but again,

the feedback that some of us are getting from our communities

that are directly affected by this is the sense that this is

a sort of unrealistic and undeliverable plan.

And I feel very strongly that we need to introduce the language

of indicativeness earlier on in the document to make it clear

to people that, you know, this is very, very early days.

It can change and so on and so forth.

These figures are very scary to communities, right?

My third question is, the previous government gave us a set of housing targets, which were

a lot lower than this, and we now have a set of new targets delivered by the Labour government,

and I don't think we're going far enough to explain to residents how these targets have

been arrived at.

The impression that people are getting is that they've been dumped on us and that we

have to deliver because we have a responsibility as a local authority reporting into the government.

I mean, I'm not a representative, I'm not elected by central government here, I'm elected

as we all are by our residents and I'm concerned about our residents.

My fourth question relates to Driffield, not my ward, it's my colleague on the left, but

it is the only place in the entire document that the word near appears.

And so the residents of Driffield believe that it's actually an extension of their village.

Everywhere else, it's north, east, south, west.

And I, people really do, the first figure of 660 was worrying enough.

It's now over 2 ,000.

And I just wonder why the word near is being used when it could be north, south, east,

I don't know where it is.

But I do think that there is an inconsistency there about Driffield.

Those are my first four questions.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:19:17

You're nearest and you're looking at me.

I feel, I don't know, I'm sure Helen's more than capable of answering all these questions,

but there may be some which either Michael or Juliet would like to take on first.

Mike, yes, he's put his thing, so thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, David, for your questions.

I'm absolutely, we might have a bit more of a discussion about the timings, but you will

note that we are now proposing a seven week consultation rather than six weeks, which

went through in the earlier decision.

Very much appreciate that the last week of that is the Christmas and New Year week, but

we have extended the timetable to allow for that.

I would ask Helen to come in and explain the importance of the timetable.

I think members will be aware that we have said we want to get our planner to the Inspector

by the end of 2026 and essentially making sure that we keep on track is an absolutely

critical part of the process.

I do appreciate December is a busy time particularly, but obviously we are looking to, if we agree

this at Cabinet tomorrow, we are looking to go live with a consultation at the end of

next week on the 14th of November.

I think indicative, I'll let Helen pick that up, but essentially yes that indicative word is through

use and these targets are indicative and I think that's made clear through the report.

On the point about the targets, yes I think those points were made by councils when the

government consulted on this last autumn and we have made representations on that now twice

to the two secretaries of state that this government has had.

And indeed, I'm sure we can, we will continue to communicate

and explain why we don't agree with the targets.

But they're ultimately the government's targets

and they've created them through the algorithm that they've used,

which on my understanding is heavily predicated

on house prices, which seems to me to be a misunderstanding

of how the housing market works.

And to your last point about Driffield, my understanding

of that and see Helen can clarify if I got that wrong, is that it's not an extension of the

existing settlements. So all of the other strategic sites, the other seven are extensions of the

existing settlements. What the settlements proposed near Driffield is a new settlement,

not an extension of the village and therefore it is termed differently from that. I'm happy to

go back to Helen for anything or Juliet if there's anything else that I think I covered all four

points that you raised. I think we have and but just on the timings is that as we unanimously

agreed in council that we would do this local plan we would do it for 2026 December and it is

imperative that we hit that date and to change and even extend by yet another week this consultation

will be jeopardising that whole plan and all the work that we're going we're doing on it.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:22:24

Councillor David Fowles - 0:22:27

It's not that I'm disagreeing with your comments.

It's just that we're talking about a document that's going

out to consultation, and I just think that we need to explain

it.

I understand, Mike, that we've written to government about the

targets, but the trouble with these documents is that we

refer back to previous things that we've discussed, et cetera,

et cetera, but the document that people will be looking at will

be this document.

And I just feel that by leaving these things out,

people that we can't automatically expect them

to go back and actually have a look at it.

I don't see why we can't make it clear why this target

and whether we can say that we take issue with this target.

It's the language of, for me, that we're sort of meekly

accepting, it comes across that we're meekly accepting

these figures when in reality we know that they're fundamentally

wrong for our community.

There is one last question which should have been...

Can I talk for a moment, I think, just for a moment?

I just think the document doesn't go far enough to explain these things.

That's what I'm trying to say.

I understand the rationale, but I just think the document doesn't explain it.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:23:37

Okay, I think Mike wants to come back beforehand.

Yeah, so can I just slightly counteract what Councillor Fowle's with?

Absolutely not me accepting what the government is doing, and I and Juliet and Helen and the

are working very closely with our communications team

to put the messages about the targets.

But clearly, the team there might be able to explain

the certain things that they need to do

in terms of to meet the statutory requirements

and to make sure that the way in which we publicise this

meets those targets.

What we absolutely don't want is to do something

which could potentially jeopardise our plan

when it gets to the inspector,

if it's challenged by a developer.

So we absolutely need to do things in the proper way.

We will have exhibitions.

We are going to be putting out

communication to all households about the about the local plan.

So we're doing everything we can to explain that the targets have been given

to us by governments and that we are challenging them.

But they are we have to work within them

at the moment, unless the government changes our target.

Can I just add further to that?

That's one of the reasons, the communication and explaining what's happening and why.

We're having the Town and Parish clerks and chairs in two meetings, one in Moreton in March tonight,

and one next week in Syrinsester, to absolutely let that group of people know,

and that can be decimated throughout their residence, along with the...

things going out on social, various social medias quite regularly. So it's, we are communicating,

I think, very well at the moment and we'll continue to do so. Just to clarify, it's not just

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:30

chairs, it's all councillors, parish and town councillors. Thank you for that, thank you.

Do you want to come in at this point and then we'll take a look? I will if that's okay, just a

Officer - 0:25:37

few points of clarification. Firstly, if I could just say for Councillor Fales's benefit, we will

put some clarification on the website in terms of numbers and make sure it's

fully explained for members of the public but if I could pick up and

respond a bit further from the leader and deputy leaders comments.

I'm going to point two. Hopefully I'll capture them all if not please please

shout. So the first issue was about concern about the timetable and can we

alter it. So the issue we have was we are trying to get to the point of an

up -to -date local plan as soon as we can for the reasons I set out earlier so

that we can control speculative development and be back in a five -year housing land supply.

We're also trying to have an up -to -date plan for when we go to a new authority, so it travels

with us. To do that, and under the existing local plan system, we have to basically submit

it by the end of 2026 to be adopted by the end of 2027. There is no movement on those

two dates. They're driven by the government. We follow a local plan process that's set

out in law and regulations of what we have to do that has minimum periods and things

that we have to do between today and that submission date.

The timetable is deliverable, but it is extremely tight.

So whilst we understand the concerns of communities

and the requirements that parishes might like us to extend

that, the timetable does not give us the luxury

to be able to do it if we are going to meet those end dates

that we are shooting for.

So the other reason why it is important is if we don't,

if we didn't go out to consultation,

we could have a scenario where the government decides

to step in and to compel us to do that.

So there was an example in September this year of Stockport where they failed to go out to their consultation

Not for the first time admittedly, but they did the government has imposed a timetable on them

Which looks very much not very many miles away from our timetable that we're currently proposing

So we don't have a lot of choice and we have a very tight timetable and whilst we understand communities concerns

As the leaders pointed out they've actually got a week longer than the statutory requirement and we're starting later

And the consultation document is already in the public domain

So we would encourage communities to be starting to look at the documents, starting to ask

questions, starting to look at our websites, so that they are ready to respond when the

consultation comes open.

And whilst we realise that also means some parishes may have to hold special meetings

that are additional meetings, we would also say if that's within your gift and you can

do that, please do, because it's very important that communities are engaged.

So indicative, it's used very advisedly, they are absolutely indicative.

These are sites that we are aware of in numbers that we think those sites can

deliver at this point. There is a whole load of evidence -based and due diligence

we need to do yet that means that some of those sites may prove to be available

but not deliverable because we can't support them with the infrastructure or

it turns out they've got a constraint we're not currently aware of or they're

no longer available. We're doing another call for sites. Sites we don't currently

know about might come forward that we also have to do that due diligence on. So

So those numbers might change.

They might go down, they might go up, sites might disappear,

sites might come in.

So it's very important to say that it's indicative.

You asked if they're unrealistic and undeliverable.

The due diligence and that evidence base will determine if

those sites are deliverable and what it would take to make

them deliverable.

Now, we already know from the consultation that as it

currently stands, we cannot deliver 18 ,650 homes as far

as we know.

We think it's about 14 and a half, 14 ,660.

When we've done that due diligence it might be that figure, it might be below.

Whatever figure it is, once we've demonstrated we've left no stone unturned,

we then go to our neighbours under what's known as the duty to cooperate

and we ask our neighbours, can you deliver any of our homes? And that could

be in Gloucestershire, it could be authorities outside the county but which

have a boundary with us or a shared housing market area. And then they

will come forward and say yes they can or no they can't and how much they can

and those things together are the figure that we will end up with in the local plan.

And if we sit in front of an inspector at an examination in public

and prove that we have looked at every possible site within our district,

done everything we can to deliver ourselves,

and when we haven't been able to do that, spoken to our neighbours

and worked with them to deliver whatever we can,

that'll be the number, and subject to us robustly demonstrating we've done all of that,

the inspector, it's within their gift to give us a sound plan on a different number,

so long as we can evidence that robustly.

So yes, we do have to deliver those housing targets

unless we've got evidence to demonstrate otherwise,

as I've just explained.

And in terms of your fourth point, Councillor Folds,

which is Driffield, the word near is there advisedly again,

because this is the one site where we are proposing

it could be in effect a new settlement next door to,

rather than an extension of,

and I think the phrases in the documents in that table,

which is now at 316 in the park,

which says new settlement near Driffield.

So it is different because that is proposed to be different to an extension to an existing village.

I just want to let you know I think that's wrong.

Understood.

Using the word near suggests right beside whereas the word north, south, whatever.

I know it's a separate settlement.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:37

If anything, it demands a word that's different to near because if you're a resident of Driffield, the vice chairman is nodding, that's the wrong word.

Near suggests it's down the road, OK?

Extension of, that's what it suggests.

That's what the English language says it is.

Not new settlement, distance from or north of or south

or between or whatever it is.

I really, really mean that.

Talking about settlement of between 50

and about 75 houses, Lisa?

Strifield?

Yeah, 89 voters.

89 voters living in 75 houses.

OK, sorry.

I know that everyone else wants to talk.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:31:14

Right, no, no, I mean we've enjoyed already half an hour and we have got, it's obviously, it's a subject which is going to have a lot of questions quite rightly.

We have now got Councillor Slater, followed by Councillor Brasington, followed by Councillor...

Van.

Oh, sorry, Van. And then we've got Watson and Spivey.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

Councillor Tony Slater - 0:31:45

Several little points.

I have started the

autumn parish council round

and their jaws drop on the floor

when they get to see the numbers.

But that is obvious.

The first question is around

green to the core on the summary

on page section 8 .1. Just really an observation, delivering nearly 20 ,000

houses can't be green to the core so could we put some sort of

acknowledgement in there that the ultimate houses might be as green as

possible but trying to deliver these numbers isn't green at all. That's one

the Lib Dems policy really density on section 2 .7 blocks of flats seems to

have been discounted straightaway because they don't fit in with the

Cotswold landscape but neither do acres acres of crappy little boxes excuse my

language which we will end up with so would it be better considering certain

sites for high density blocks of flats tucked away in a corner

somewhere rather than just save a few fields.

Infrastructure, there's a lot of talk about infrastructure.

Can we insist that infrastructure is in place or

at least planned before the sites are started to develop

because we all know the problems up at Morton where we've got development and

no services and if we do that and the developments are stopped does that mean

we then don't reach our target within the time period and we have to find

somewhere else to build them because that's that's referenced if sites are

delayed then we have to find somewhere else to meet the targets so if we

haven't got the infrastructure and we can't build does that mean we've got to

point somewhere else.

Just a couple of observations on the slides themselves.

Would it be possible to tag the dots in the developments with the numbers associated with

those developments?

Because people tend to look at their own little corner, their own village or town.

And I've just totted up the numbers south of Syrinsester.

So the one little sliver that's outside the national landscape, there's nearly 9 ,000 houses

there and if the same is happening in North Wiltshire coming up then that's

going to be a full -on city just south of Syrinsester and just one final thing

it's amongst all this it's a bit pedantic but on slide 20 in a couple of

places you reference the total amount of dwellings and I think it should be

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:34:50

number just radical. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Slater. Who would like would

Helen want to answer? Yes Helen. Thank you. Okay thank you and just a couple of comments.

Officer - 0:34:58

So the green to the core also relates to the policies they're in the plan as well

not just the houses and the development that comes forward. In terms of density we

will have to consider density we will have to assure inappropriate sustainable

locations it is the highest density that's appropriate but accepting the

nature of the district that we live in that it isn't always the case that that

can be sustained or is actually good development. In terms of your query

Councillor, about infrastructure being in place first so what would happen is

assuming this plan gets adopted and we have allocations it would then move to

the planning application stage. At that stage they would be required to

demonstrate that they could deliver whatever infrastructure was required. We

also have an infrastructure delivery plan that will sit alongside this

this development when it comes to school.

In space anything that comes under the banner of the infrastructure you would need to support communities that are growing.

So we would have a plan that sits alongside it that indicates what infrastructure is required and then as developments come forward

they will be required through a number of mechanisms to contribute or deliver that infrastructure.

So that could be through community infrastructure levy, section 1 .6, it could be delivering.

That will vary from one site to another and dependent on what the infrastructure is, but

what you would get is sometimes you get some infrastructure at the beginning and some at

various trigger points. So upon first occupation or after the occupation of the X number of

homes, depending on the size of the site. I think what you have to remember is developments

have to be able to afford the infrastructure. So there's often a case if you have to build

a number of homes to generate some income to pay for the next bit of infrastructure.

so you can't have everything up front.

And the infrastructure is there to mitigate

the impact of the growth.

So it's also not reasonable to expect somebody to,

for example, build a primary school

if there are no children on site until X number of homes.

So it's a balance of all those things.

There will be infrastructure built into any consent,

but the trigger points will vary depending

on what it is and the size of the development

and may come over a number of years.

And note your points about tagging dots

and the wording in the slides, and we'll have a look at that.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:37:13

Thank you. I'm going to allow Councillor Spivey to leapfrog ahead.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:37:23

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to pick up the first point, which was the political point, I think, about the green to the core.

So, as Helen said, the policies are in already in terms of the Reg 18 consultation that we've already done last year.

But clearly this is a national government policy and we have to do work within the national government policy.

And yes, I totally accept the point that Tony makes.

This level of development in a locality such as the Cotswolds concentrated in a small part of our fraction of our district

is not the best choice for the environment, but we don't have that choice, the government.

and we keep lobbying, as I made earlier, to say that our targets are wrong.

But that's our position.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:38:17

Thank you, Mike, for that extra clarification. It's really helpful.

Councillor Spivey has got an important meeting later today at the House of Lords,

so I'd love to hear from her now, so she's got time to get ready to go there.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. Thank you, colleagues.

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:38:33

I've got a couple of questions and then a comment.

Can I make a comment as well at this point?

Thank you.

Okay, so questions are around.

I mean, I think it's safe to say that actually

it doesn't matter how long the consultation is.

And I think I could ask, I could tell you right now

the communities that I represent would say

they don't want any of this.

And I think they're absolutely right.

And I think they're completely correct.

I think this, I'll come back to that actually.

But what I wanted to ask about then was when they make their comments, can we just talk

about the criteria of the objections that may be put in or the comments that could be

put in about why people don't want this?

Because I would say that the character of the Cotswolds and of our fields and our open

spaces around our rural villages is absolutely vital to what makes the Cotswolds the Cotswolds,

the internationally renowned destination.

And if we just literally pave paradise, like I said the last time,

and we just literally put houses on every single field near to,

around about North, South, East and West of Preston,

of Antony Cruces,

heavy and seriously, Poulton, Down Antony, Morton,

because that is the only in the 20 % of the of the district that we're allowed

to build in, then what is the rest of the Cotswolds? So you know when we talked

about this and it has been raised already and it's come to you, but when

residents are not allowed to say well that's not a material planning

consideration that we didn't you know we live in the Cotswolds because we love

fields we love countryside and if I look out my window and all I see is yet more

thousands of houses then well what's the point of even being in the Cotswolds? So

I'd like to know about what people can say that is material because I believe very, very strongly

that seeing fields in the countryside is material to being in the Cotswolds. That's my question.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:40:49

Yes, I will. Did I see the mic? Sorry.

Yeah, sorry. I mean, obviously, we've got Helen there to give the planning officer's

answer. I think, you know, I totally understand what Lisa is saying, Juliet and I, you know,

obviously, I represent those people in many of the settlements, two of the most effective,

potentially affected settlements. And I totally understand what Lisa is saying.

And, you know, we as a council, yeah, essentially we're in a really hard place,

as we said, when we met with you a time before in terms of what we're being asked to do.

But what we're trying to do is to make sure that if we do have development, that it is

with the appropriate infrastructure. Totally accept the point that Lisa makes that the

cult, the character of our area is potentially under threat.

I guess it comes back to, and Helen's the professional can give a view on this,

about the weight in which a planning inspector will ultimately, uh, look at

those arguments, because as we said, if we say that, uh, a piece of land is not

suitable for development, but a developer thinks that it is, then they have the

right to appeal and we get to, um, uh, an examination in public and get that land

put back in if we've chosen not to put it in.

So I think, so to hear what you say Lisa,

I'll be very welcome to hear what Helen

as our lead professional on this says.

Okay, thank you very much.

Officer - 0:42:15

Yep, so I understand your comments

and we absolutely expect the public

to have all of those thoughts

and want to express concerns about impact

on the countryside, loss of view,

impact on property value.

These are things we hear every local plan

and every planning application in these circumstances.

Material considerations, it's not an exhaustive list.

It's not necessarily set down in a regulation.

It's largely defined by case law and previous cases of experience,

but there are a number of things that are generally considered

to be material considerations.

And the shortest way to describe it is it's a matter of public

interest and not private interest.

So greater good, not individual impact.

But things that can be taken into account in determining a

planning application or in considering a local plan are

Things like policy, so national policy, policy and other extant plans.

Impact on immunity, by which we don't necessarily mean your view,

but noise, privacy, overshadowing of visual impact.

Highway safety and traffic, if you think that it is not safe

or the roads can't take the development without infrastructure

investments, then that is a material consideration.

Heritage, conservation considerations, environmental impact,

so flood, biodiversity, air quality, climate change.

On a positive side, you might decide something has good characteristics,

because it's creating jobs, for example, or regeneration or investment.

There might be social considerations that need to develop affordable housing,

might be seen as a positive.

Any previous history that might be relevant to that point

is if it's a planning application, obviously a material consideration.

It's not exhaustive, but it generally is in the greater public interest rather than private interest.

members of the public can say whatever they like in representations but we as

the local planning authority can only take into account something that is

material to the local plan and so can the inspector so they won't travel

forward they won't necessarily be reflected in any amendments to the next

stage of the plan because we're not able to take them into account that doesn't

mean they can't made it doesn't mean members the public may not even take

part in the examination public and share those opinions but we do not have the

to be able to respond to them and amend the plan accordingly. Thank you and

through the chair can I ask that we get that sort of list circulated that you

mentioned it's really really useful and I think actually my point really is about

we do have a short you know communities have a short time to respond and

reality is a short time I know that it's the statutory minimum or whatever but it

really is we're going to spend like the best part of I mean I think since I've

Council here since 2019 we've been working on the local plan. It's now you

know six years later and our communities are getting six weeks to

respond so actually it is a short time and what they'll want to do is they want

to make sure that the remarks and comments they do make are valid so I

think it's really important so that would be really useful and actually I

would say you know when I talk about views and when I talk about landscape

I'm not talking about my individual view or any of those residents I represent I

I am talking about the greater good.

And actually my comment,

if I'd like to come to that, please chair,

is that actually I really feel strongly,

I've been reflecting a lot on this since the last meeting,

that I think this is fundamentally wrong for the Cotswolds.

I think we should not be going ahead to this.

I know that Matt asked him the question is,

is this the right way forward strategically?

No, I think it's completely wrong.

And when I look at that map,

when I looked at the 80 % AOMB and the 20 % that's left,

We are literally going to have to cover in houses.

I think it's absolutely wrong in every level.

And as somebody who's been elected,

and we're not from the Cotswolds,

you can probably tell, but have lived here

and been, you know, had an association

with the Cotswolds for 25 years.

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:45:57

And I feel that as an elected member,

I feel like I'm a guardian and a custodian.

Mr. Hindle here talked earlier about legacy,

and I really do not want my legacy as a councillor here

to be literally paving paradise.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:14

Thank you. A very impassioned point. And I think actually everyone here in our own way

feels very, very strongly about this. I don't know whether Mike wanted to come in now. Actually,

one comment I just want to make about the whole thing is that by putting all the housing

into 20 % and protecting the other, far from the Government's achieved objective of reducing

the prices, the prices in those areas which are protected will go up, which is so self -defeating

in every way. I just find the whole policy, anyway, that's a, and that annoys me intensely.

I'm not allowed to say that as Chair. Mike, did you want to actually add anything to that

or no? Thank you.

No, that does.

So just, yeah. Oh, Geraldine.

Officer - 0:47:02

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I just, in answer to the original question about character and

landscape. Councillor Spivey, I absolutely agree with you. I think that is a material

consideration. So I think we can differentiate between the greater good

and private views or private interests, but the impact of the development on the

character and appearance of that area and that swathe of land, be it adjacent

to a village as an extension to a village or in the wider context, the

impact of this level of development on that character of that landscape is a

to your consideration. Thank you, thank you, thank you for that additional comment I

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:47:44

think very important. I have now got Councillor Brasington. Thank you chair.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:47:50

Well two of my questions have already been asked by a Councillor Slater so I

haven't got so many. The first thing is on page three the recommendation is that

I wish to go to the Cabinet on the 6th of September, should I say November?

On page 3.

Oh, September's gone.

The more serious question is about the different scenarios we've got.

We've specified seven of them, but only one of them meets the government target, and we're

looking at one scenario five, which doesn't.

What concerns me is if we don't meet the government target are we letting

ourselves being open to speculative developments like we have done in the

past where developers come in we put big plans in knowing that we are going to

turn down but the government will approve because we haven't got the land

supply figures so will that give us problems if we don't if we just go for

scenario five or whatever.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:49:10

Helen wants to go first.

Sorry, trying to keep.

Mike, Mike, you go first.

OK, thanks, Ray, for your question.

I think Helen obviously will pick that up.

I took from the answer that she gave earlier that if we can

justify that we've looked at all the sites that are

available and deliverable and they don't sum up to the total

that the government wants us to deliver.

And we can have had those conversations with our

neighbouring authorities and try to find additional sites to

meet the number.

And if we get to a number less than 18 and a half thousand,

that the inspector, we can argue that we've done everything we

can to meet the target and that an inspector could,

in that scenario, agree that we can make our local plan.

and if we can make our local plan, then we can use it to defend against vector to development.

That's my understanding of it.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:50:11

Thank you for that.

Exactly that, thank you very much.

Officer - 0:50:16

But just to expand, Scenario 6 is the only one in this document that potentially meets and just exceeds the

target that we've been given and that would require extensive development in the national landscape, which is contrary to national policy.

So you would expect an inspector to have an issue with that scenario if we were to pursue it

and therefore as the leader has said so long as we show that we have done everything we possibly can to consider all sites that

are available and deliverable and within that

policy constraint then and we've also spoken to our neighbours to assist that development then we would hope that the inspector would see that

and accept a different figure if a higher one was not deliverable. Thank you.

Thank you and Councillor Parris, you had another question?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:50:57

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:51:01

Just finally some more comment. It mentioned in the report a number of times about approaching neighbouring local authorities to take some of our load. Is that a really viable option?

Officer - 0:51:14

Thank you, Chair. Yes, it is a viable option. So the authority that I used to work with,

we allocated in our draught local plan a site of over 2 ,000 houses to help Gloucester City.

So it absolutely is something which is part of the overall wider spatial consideration

of developments and the difficulties that districts have in possibly meeting targets.

Thank you. I now have Councillor van Pustay, please.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:51:43

Thanks.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:51:45

I've got a few very specific ones.

Page 22.

Now, 2523 and 2526 are identical apart from the number of homes.

I just think it would be helpful for giving some reason as to why.

Appreciate one is scenario six and the other is scenario seven.

I assume that it's not a typographical error.

It's intended.

But it is a bit of a puzzle to me how the only difference between the two is the number

of homes.

Perhaps some different, slightly different wording would be helpful to indicate that

one knows that it's different.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:52:42

Helen, would you like to?

Thank you.

Officer - 0:52:47

I may ask Matt to come in to give you the technically correct answer, but there are

some differences, but except your point that maybe we need to clarify that.

So scenario six does include development in the national

landscape, scenario seven includes development on all

sites that have so far been assessed as unsuitable

for development.

So there is a difference, but I don't know, Matt,

if you want to expand upon that, please.

Matt Smith -Smith Yeah, that's pretty much spot on.

And we've looked at sites outside of the national

landscape and further reasons they might be unsuitable for

development, and so we've sort of considered that option in

scenario seven as well.

That's the symbol really.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:53:28

You could now go to page 23.

Two, 25, 213.

In the third line, you have areas eight.

Is it that there are eight potential new settlements and strategic sites? It doesn't say so.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:54:00

Who would like to answer that one?

Page 25.

Is it Matt?

Officer - 0:54:13

I think that should save the area's eight strategic sites.

Yeah, it's amazing.

You look at these reports so many times and then these things come from.

Thank you.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:54:32

I did read it correctly, but I don't think we should assume that other readers are going

to do the same.

Good?

Moving on.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:54:42

Page 26.

Now, and in 216.

Now, I've had a look online at all three.

Woodbury Down, Stratford Halo, and Bristol Temple Quarter.

Now, the Temple Quay seems to get one 95 million of the government's support, having looked

at that.

And Stratford Halo, it's the 46th tallest building in London, 443 feet high.

I joke not, this is what this is what Berkeley homes are very proud of it.

Say about it, so appreciate level of intensity but the relevance is a puzzle to me.

Thank you.

Officer - 0:55:51

Except what you're saying in terms of the densities and the locations, I think what

we're trying to say is that even under scenario five, the level of density we would have to

build at to meet the government targets is so significant that it represents the kind

of densities you have in somewhere that is not the Cotswolds.

It is those urban, dense, much more built up, often city centre locations.

and that's what we're trying to demonstrate and show at that point is that even if we look at density,

we do not have a district that is of a character that requires to build to the densities that those developments do.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:56:27

Last but not least of my survey of the document produced, page 27, the call for sites.

Without going into too much detail, can you give a progress report on the call for sites?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:56:46

Officer - 0:56:51

We have already had one call for sites. We open and close, but in effect they are always

open and people can come forward. We will as a result of this consultation period go

out and call again and encourage people to bring forward any sites that we may not have

previously considered or may not have previously been available.

Officer - 0:57:10

do you wish to add anything to that? Just to say it's also about if there's anything

that's changed on sites and that you know the changes of uses or if there's

any information that they also want to provide us then we also encourage that

because that's quite and reconfirming the availability of sites that have been

put forward as well.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:57:28

Got a couple more.

For the timing, I'm just going to have to accept and try and persuade others to accept

that the people who are trying to get us the new local plan, you, have no option whatsoever.

ever and I think it would be helpful if that could come into the document and

into the publicity that's going out.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:58:08

Sorry just before Helen comes in I just thought Mike might want to add into this too.

Thank you Michael on that particular point I think we'll pick that up and

respond appropriately at the cabinet tomorrow.

So we may not put it into the specific document,

but in terms of what we say about that

in terms of the communications,

and if we need to, we obviously got the town and parish

forums going on tonight and also on Monday.

And we can explain that there face to face with

people from the town and parish councils,

who obviously were most significantly affected

in terms of having meetings to consider their response.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:58:49

Thank you very much. Last but not least, Reg 18. It's technical, Regulation 18. I think

people are going to glaze over unless it's explained and again and again and again.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:59:18

Can I answer that one? Yeah, obviously we don't have a head of communications with us this

afternoon. He's busy preparing for the Town and Parish Forum this evening in Moreton, but

Absolutely.

His job, and together with obviously Juliet and myself as the non -planning professionals,

is to make sure that we don't have jargon, that the communications are clear and understandable,

and at the end of the day, it's a public consultation, whether it's Regulation 18 or 19.

It's important from a legal perspective and the planner's perspective, but from a public

perspective, it's important that they understand this is the first consultation and there will

be a second one and in the second one next summer we will be talking about

specific sites and that's the process and so that they understand that

but this is about the scenarios and obviously we've given the indicative

sites an indicative number of homes so that it's people are least aware of what

may be coming in the in the reg19 one next year.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:00:23

I think Helen would you still like to add to that?

Finally, what I've been thinking about as the meeting's progressed is whether we do

a recommendation that the consultation goes out with a clear explanation of the people.

I think you're already working towards this, I'm sure you are, but it is clearly what is

concerning people that all the residents fully understand what's going on and in plain English

so they can respond. Now we have got Councillor Watson.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:01:01

Thank you, Chair. I have got two questions and a comment, if I may. The first question

is on the consultation. Did we design this consultation? I know we have got a fixed period

of time to do this in or was this form of consultation given to us by the government

or whatever? Second question is more specific to the planning

itself and I welcome the fact that we've got some flexibility on density. I think that

is positive. I would point out that it has to be in the right place, in the right environment

and it's not for every case that we have high density.

How do we, the question is, how do we ensure

that that density is not over,

we're not building in too many houses in such a small area.

It's called the Cotswolds.

It's called Cotswolds.

It's called Preston, sending some fools in.

Yeah, exactly.

It is on housing, on housing density, so how do we ensure that doesn't get exploited by

developers?

My comment would be, first of all, a huge thank you to all the people who have been

involved in this document, in putting this together, because it's a huge amount of work.

I can see that, I've seen that, experienced that over the last six months, so thank you

to our offices. That is very much appreciated. My final, I go back to the point I think Councillor

Slater made, is that again, I personally don't see a problem with apartment buildings, low

apartment buildings in the right place again. It is a step on to the housing ladder for

people. They are normally cheaper than it would be to buy a four bedroom Cotswold house.

If we are going to build, I wouldn't rule it out completely, but in the right place

they might be useful. My very, very last point is, and goes back to something that David

mentioned before, is the local government has become the messenger for national government

in this case and you know what happens to messengers they get shot so that I

think comms becomes very very important what Mike and Julia are doing tonight is

great I would ask for more more more every word we can get out to our towns

and parishes is very important so thank you thank you

Was that a hands up from the mic or just a show of hands?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:04:02

Thank you.

And I'll answer the first point, if I may,

Officer - 1:04:06

and then I'll ask Gerry to respond in terms of how we might

manage the density through the planning process.

But in terms of the, is this consultation fixed or given,

do we have control or is it fixed by the government?

So there are some elements that are fixed,

so we must have various stages of a local plan process,

and the regulation 18 or the issues and the options stage

is a stage that we have to go through.

And the housing number has obviously been

passported down from the national government.

But what is within our gift is then what we propose

as the scenarios and what evidence we put forward

and information that comes to us that then informs

what we're proposing in those issues and options

that we've set out.

And the questions that we ask in that consultation

are questions that we draught based on what we know.

So there is a local interpretation

of a national requirement to deliver a local plan. We have drafted those based on the scenarios

that have been proposed as a result of what we know today.

Officer - 1:05:11

Thank you chair. Yes thank you council Watson. I think you use the term flexibility on density

and I think that's absolutely the central core point to this. There will be locations where

some higher density development will be acceptable.

So, for example, we have flat, flatted development being

proposed within the steadings.

That's sort of quite an urban character.

But there will be other areas within, you know,

should some of these sites come forward in Reg 19,

such as extensions to Preston, Amne Cruces,

where I think it's fair to say that a high level of flatted

development or dense development may not be appropriate.

because if you are attaching in strategic development to existing

settlements then it's that existing settlement that has to lead the

character of that development of the new development. It would be

inappropriate for the new development to have its own quasi urban character

sitting alongside some of these very significantly characterful villages as

they are at the moment.

So I think it's a case of each on its merits,

but there will be locations where, as I say,

high density development probably

won't be in keeping with the overall character of the area.

And the way that we would be looking to try to highlight

that to developers is the use of development briefs.

I'm looking over to Matt now, but I think the intention is,

moving forward towards Reg 19 with the strategic sites,

no matter what they look like, we

would be looking to put some framework in. You'll have a detailed policy in any

event which will set out parameters but over and above that I think we're

looking to have a development brief of some sort which gives a clear indication

to developers what type and scale and design and quality of development we're

looking for.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:07:11

Thank you. I have now got Claire, Chancellor Turner.

Councillor Clare Turner - 1:07:15

Thank you. I think my colleagues have very well covered how we all feel about the targets

and the chair raised our concerns that this won't really address the affordability issues.

I don't want to dwell on that. The reason we are having this additional meeting today

is specifically about these extra numbers that are being included and I

just wanted to recognise the fact that from my perspective I think it's helpful

to be very clear and transparent it helps our communities really understand

the scale and the challenge of the problems and I also want to say thank

you as council Watson did for the amount of information that's gone in I have

felt better equipped to go to parish councils and residents and discuss with them what these

targets really mean for us and the importance of the communities coming together and making

sure their voices are heard and their comments are heard. So thank you for all of that. It's

not really a question. I just wanted to put that out there that I think it's valuable

that communities understand the phenomenal scale of these numbers that are being put

forward not just in this plan but what it could mean beyond the plan and thank

you for equipping us as councillors with the information that we need to help

them understand and contribute constructively to the consultation.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:08:39

Thank you very much. Can I just briefly respond to Claire and thank her

for her very considered comments as ever.

And thank her also for, together with me,

signing a joint letter with Councillor Stowe

and Councillor Inge to Steve Reid,

to also, as well as pointing out the impact

of the housing targets, to actually ask him to come here

and meet with us so we can explain that to him firsthand.

But, you know, I think, thank you, Claire,

for your very considered comments.

And as we go forward, you know,

we really emphasise we absolutely want communities to engage in the consultation

and we know it's difficult, we know it's quite emotive, but you know ultimately we

want to have the best outcomes for our communities and that's about having

planned development and not speculative development and we've seen the impact of

speculative development in communities such as Moreton and Tepry and Bedford

and we don't want that. We want development which is harmonious for that community.

I understand all the points made by Lisa, particularly very strongly, and Councillor Fowles and David

about those communities which they are very, very familiar with and also my own part, my communities that I represent.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:10:07

Thank you, Mike. I think... No, not yet. We haven't finished. I know that Councillor

Jenkinson's got a number of questions, so I think the best thing is if he could

read them all out or speak them all together and then the different people

want to pick up. I don't think they'd all be answered by one person and then I will

let people to come back. I've also got my own questions. So, Councillor Jenkinson.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:10:41

Thank you, Chair. And can I echo the remarks that have already been made?

Clearly an enormous amount of work, very professional and a couple of comments

that I'm going to make are specifically regarding that. So I really do appreciate

this and it's really important I think to members to be able to be confident

that professional people have done a professional job with a lot of expertise

because we stand up in front of people and make that point,

because they can not always understand that.

I do see that there's a couple of rhetorical purposes, if I could use that term, in mind, in the design.

One is to be able to make a point to the inspector that we've examined all the different options,

But there's a different communication task, which is to communicate with our communities

about the situation.

And I have not examined the document that's going out into consultation, and I assume

that it's still under consideration, so to speak.

But I would like to make sure that we really get across clearly the intent to protect our

neighbourhoods as best we can, as well as the intent to leave no

stones unturned and to prove that we cannot meet the

objective.

On that point, I think that there's, it would be helpful,

there may be the document, the full document covers things that

are not in this one, but it would be very helpful to have

clarity on specific numbers and in particular percentages.

For example, on pages 20, 21, as they are numbered in the original document, and 30,

31 in this one, there's two different sets of data on numbers, and they don't tally.

And the reason they don't tally is because on the first page, it includes already existing

developments that are agreed, so to speak, and in the second, it doesn't.

Now, people are going to be calculating percentages because they're not shown here, and as a result

of doing that, comparing what's going on here compared with there and this place and that

place, and if different people are calculating those percentages on different bases, we'll

get all kinds of confusion.

There are pie charts which are excellent, but the pie charts don't list the total numbers

or the actual percentage.

So, I'd like to make sure that we really do make visible the total level of growth that

is envisaged at stage one, stage two in a particular neighbourhood for each community,

in other words.

That's a, I won't ask you to answer that question now, but that's a comment.

I want to move on to the question of sustainability.

I don't know whether you've covered that.

I don't know what sustainability really means in this context. It's a fuzzy term.

I know that people in Moreton do not consider the town to be sustainable today, never mind anything else.

If sustainable means it is sustainable because it's a railway station, excellent, that's a great place to build lots of houses.

That's not what they understand by sustainable when they see the local, the town centre declining

because of the amount of traffic that's going on and the inability and I think

Mike and Juliet might have got some experience of that. So it would be good to get

some clarity today about what you mean by sustainability and to make sure it's

clear to everybody. I think there's another aspect that doesn't come across,

at least I'm investigating, hypothesising to you. It is not the absolute amount of

land that is not AONB -stroke national landscape, but that each parish has a perimeter, and

that perimeter meets, in some cases, 100 % the national landscape. It is completely surrounded

by national landscape, and in others it is not. My ward, for example, doesn't meet the

national landscape, but the neighbouring ward in Moreton does. As a result, my ward has

had loads of development over 20 years,

and it's got four strategic development sites planned

for it.

So what that does is remove all sorts of settlements

as possible locations other than marginal amounts of growth

because they are completely surrounded.

So you might be able to get many, many houses in principle

into the land that is not AONB.

But if they're not, if the settlements,

There's only a few settlements where that can happen, and those settlements are already

being distorted and twisted by history.

That creates a real problem.

If they already suffer from infrastructure, that creates a problem.

And I think it's really important to get that message across for the Inspectorate and recognition

to neighbours that we understand that to our communities.

Maybe you would like to comment on that.

I'm not clear what a larger situs that term is used a number of times.

The term strategic site is also used.

I asked in a recent briefing what that meant,

and I was told any site more than 500.

But I get the impression that that's a bit more,

you know, because at least one of the developments that's

already agreed has got well over 500,

and two others have got nearly 500.

So what's a larger site, what's a strategic site,

and how are they considered?

Maybe that's well covered in the actual document that goes out,

And if so, very good.

I want to just make a couple of comments.

I think that infrastructure is something that is really

important.

It's really good that you've built that in.

I think we are building communities, not just houses.

And I think that if you agree that your intention is to build

communities, not houses, I think it's worth saying so.

We have a real problem with, in my observation up north,

with problems of infrastructure.

And confidence that that infrastructure would be

addressed would be of immense help to us.

And I know that even those people most vehemently in

opposition to the development historically,

when you ask them, would point out that what they're

very concerned about is development that doesn't

have matched infrastructure and is not consistent with the kind of town that they are used to

and expect in the Cotswold town. Can that be conserved? And in that particular point,

I'd just like to say that when I drive around the villages, I see lots of terraced developments.

And every one, I think, pretty much every one of the original development, housing development

in Morton in Marsh consisted of terraced houses for the most part.

And not only that, but they had variety.

And they were interesting up at three feet away, and they were interesting at 30 metres

away, and they were interesting at 300 metres away.

And that's the kind of thing that really makes something beautiful and worth seeing.

So I'm interested in how you've used the term on density,

that maybe there are some strategic density could be used.

I think the other thing to avoid is that we're creating suburbs.

And I have seen developments that are on the verge

of being suburbs in my ward.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:18:36

Thank you. Lots of points raised and questions. I don't know who would like to go first. Have

you made notes on those? Helen will go first and if Mike you want to come in or Juliet

please do or anybody else, Geraldine and Matt. Thank you.

Officer - 1:18:52

Thank you. I will ask Matt to come in if that's okay and give me some advance warning because

some of this goes into some of the background documents that sit behind the consultation

document but in short in terms of sustainability we have done a settlement

role and function study that has supported where we are today on the

consultation document and that has looked at existing facilities within

settlements, shops, transport nodes etc and that then helps us produce the

hierarchy of settlements. Now if you have growth then that growth has to be

sustainable so you have to have additional infrastructure in it and when

we know what sites are coming forward and what infrastructure might support

them, that hierarchy may be different when it's finished.

But it really means the facilities and the transport

connectivity that sit within areas that allow them to support

growth.

And I accept your point, and it came up very loudly and clearly

last week at Morton, didn't it, about the impact of transport,

for example, on an area that already exists before any

growth.

So any growth that we look at generally you mitigate the

impact of the new growth, but we accept there are areas that

already have existing problems that we would need to see what

can be done to try and alleviate and address those as they go forward. So, you

know, it is something that we're very cognizant of and it is something growth

would have to be supported by, but in this context what we really mean is the

ability, going back to the comment of building communities, how can you exist

within a community and be self -sustaining or do you have to travel

somewhere else to get those facilities and if so that would necessarily limit the

amount of growth. And strictly speaking, as you rightly said, Councillor, strategic

site is anything over 500, but I will ask Matt to come in because obviously he has more

detail on the evidence base that's up beneath this if that's okay. Thank you.

Officer - 1:20:30

Yeah, just on the strategic site point, yeah, we've taken that as anything that's 500 or

more, it's in various documents that have been produced and yeah, so that's the sort

of threshold for a strategic site, but also taking into consideration that there can be

several smaller sites that helped us create that figure.

Yeah, on the sustainability point as well,

and yeah, we have done the settlement role

and function study, but we also have to consider

the social, economic, and environmental sustainability

of development as well.

So we have to demonstrate that they're sustainable

from that point of view as well on the particular sites.

So yeah, on the infrastructure point as well,

Yeah, fully acknowledge that some locations there is existing infrastructure issues and

that has to be taken into consideration of how many homes we think can be delivered on

sites in the local plan period.

So yeah, the test is there's got to be a reasonable prospect that the amount of houses would be

delivered in the local plan period.

And so infrastructure issues and when infrastructure would be delivered or upgraded, that's something

we have to look at as well and how that affects housing delivery.

So yeah, that is something we absolutely have to look at.

Were there any other particular points that you needed me to sort of help explain?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:22:01

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:22:03

So does strategic site just mean it's bigger than a certain number or does it mean it kicks

off a certain incremental level of infrastructure or commitment or design because it is a strategic

site?

Is it just, well, it's bigger than 500, or does it mean something significant?

Officer - 1:22:27

Yeah, I mean, the, like, for example, the settings in the local plan, the policy that

we have adopted that had its own specific policy

because it was such a big site

and it sets out all of the different infrastructure

that'd be required for that site in that policy.

So yeah, it's of a scale that's like,

it requires more consideration of the infrastructure issues

and it has to be sort of joined up as well.

So if there's smaller sites that we work all

coming forward to together,

yeah, you have to make sure that it's coordinated

and plan properly. Some locations have more than one strategic site, some

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:23:08

settlements. Would they be in fact approached in a coordinated way or as

independent strategic sites? I appreciate at this point you're only trying to

evaluate is this a reasonable feasible place where development could take place

but once it is settled how would it be treated where there's more than one in

relation to a particular settlement.

Officer - 1:23:33

So yeah, there are some settlements where, yeah.

If I may come into that, I think it will depend on the context.

So the term strategic site doesn't automatically mean that

that level of development or above will require a certain

short list or long list of infrastructure.

It will very much depend where that site is.

So for example, a site for 500 houses adjoining

Syrinsester is probably going to require, not necessarily,

because it will be on the merits of the case,

but it may well require less infrastructure than 500 houses,

for example, in Borton and Marsh.

So I think it's a matter of where the site is

and what the context is, if that's helpful, Councillor.

So multiple strategic sites would then

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:24:22

be part of that context for the overall thinking?

Yes, they would.

Right, well, thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:24:29

I had one question which actually...

Oh, sorry. Oh, my, sorry.

If I could briefly respond to Angus.

I think that very...

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments, as ever.

I think the comment about building communities, not just houses,

is exactly why we're doing this.

Because what we know is if we don't have a local plan,

we'll just get houses and we won't be building communities.

And I know this is painful and that's been expressed very clearly and very eloquently earlier by Lisa,

but it's about, I think, going through a process that helps us build communities in our district and not just houses.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:25:12

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:25:17

Hello. Thank you for that.

I'm sorry, Mike, I don't always see you waving.

It's quite difficult.

This hybrid nature is a little bit complicated.

I had one question, first of all, which was Matt brought it up,

but I've been concerned about it.

We are meant to be looking at the development of the economic part

of the district as well as the housing.

Now, if you get all this housing and there are no jobs to go to,

and I'm actually looking at our northern bit of the district,

certainly in Meckleton and Willasee,

there are no employment prospects around that unless you've got a car because the transport

certainly isn't good enough. When will we be starting considering encouraging businesses

to provide the work for the people coming to live in these houses? That's one question.

My other question, which I'm sure I'm going to be told is not the appropriate point to

put it, but I've become aware that the Housing Building Federation has discovered through

Freedom Information exercise that on new housing developments with over 10 properties built

over the last three years, just 10 % of the sites have had the roads adopted, 3 % of the

sewers have been adopted by the relevant water company and only 2 % of the sustainable drainage

system, SUDS, are adopted by the local water company. In my ward, I've just had a notification

that it is unlikely that Gloss Highways will ever adopt the roads in a relatively new state.

as they were not built in the way that was required under planning permission.

Bear in mind that this is part of the infrastructure requirements going into

these new housing estates and developments. The cost of these now

would fall on the owners of the properties including housing

associations through the management companies set up by developers to manage

that and it would have to include the roads as well in this case if they're

adopted. What can CDC do to try to ensure that the vital infrastructure is adopted

by the relevant organisation and in particular gloss highways? We've got this

huge amount of development, there'll be lots of new roads, lots of new drainage,

lots of suds. How do we deal with that? Thank you.

Officer - 1:27:37

So when we have a planning application obviously we work, we consult with the

County Council, their highways team are involved,

and they do have a manual for streets and design standards

that they expect new development to meet,

and we would obviously advise applicants to do that.

We can grant planning permission in advance of that

agreement, but obviously what we don't want is

developments tripped up later when they then come to

get adopted and fail to meet that standard.

So the answer is early engagement with the county

and involving them in those applications.

They are also consulted and involved in the local

plan process as well, but we're cognizant of it.

We know it has been an issue on some developments and we continue to engage with our colleagues at County Council

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:28:19

But on the build figures from the housing building Federation it is fairly horrific and it seems

Like all things nowadays if somebody can avoid taking on responsibility and therefore the cost of something

It seems that they often

Seem to use that as a reason and I mean gloss highways is using it and on this particular case in

I do have a concern about that. The other thing was the work opportunities. I hope that

that is going to be addressed because it's no point putting up loads of houses, putting

lots of people moving in here and then they all have to drive miles.

The things we mentioned earlier on, certainly the railway station in Moreton would not have

the capacity to take everybody to thither and that. The trains are fairly full as they

let alone with more people and not just joining at Morton of course they'll be

joining up and down the track as well. I did also want to pick up on Angus

Jenkinson he mentioned the pie charts and it has been mentioned about these

figures and whether we can have a bit more clarification of the figures behind

them not just the pie chart which shows you a proportion but not the difference

Officer - 1:29:32

thank you. Okay thank you yes the comment about the pie charts noted we'll take

that way and see what we can do to represent that. In terms of the employment

point, I draw your attention to section 4 and 4 .3 specifically which talks about

economic and employment and commercial developments, except it's a very small

part of the document because the focus is primarily at this point on housing.

The reason for that is that the housing and employment needs assessment and our

town centre study is not yet available but we are nonetheless inviting early

comments through this consultation and there will be more information at a

to date and further consultation periods. Matt, anything you want to add to that?

Officer - 1:30:07

Just to also say we've got a good understanding of sites that are available for employment

development in the district already, but the call for sites is asking for further employment

land as well. So, yeah, it is an important consideration.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:30:27

Do you want to come back with another question?

Councillor David Fowles - 1:30:34

I have several quick questions.

The first question is when we last looked at reg 18, I made the comment on the chart

that actually spelt out the impact on all of the communities.

But could we please put in there the existing planning consents?

So, take Syrinsester, for example.

We've heard Helen, you've referred to it in several meetings,

that the good news about Syrinsester is that they've only built 65 houses,

even though they've got planning permission for 2 ,350.

If you look at that chart, unless you know that,

you will think that that target is an additional target.

So we were going to insert a column that said, you know,

to the best of our ability, existing planning permissions,

which isn't there yet.

That certainly applies to proposed principal settlements

and proposed non -principal settlements.

But what's interesting, and I hear what Mike says about

impacts on, I've been reading again, his own ward with

Preston and Siddington.

So there's some really scary numbers there.

If you look at that last column, and I keep on talking about Amity Cruces, and your point

at the last meeting, which was don't worry, Amity Cruces won't be hit after 2043, and

I rather facetiously said, well, worry, because Amity Cruces won't exist by then anyway.

But there's no indicative figures to the current size of those settlements in the last column

over on the right -hand side.

So, strategic extension north of Amity Cruces,

I think it would be useful because it, for residents,

and indeed where this document will travel to beyond that,

to say, you know, Amity Cruces has got whatever it has got,

early 200s, because when we talk about Amity Cruces,

and Preston and so on, we're talking about houses

that are three times the number of houses

that are actually there at the moment, all right?

So, I do think we need to add in those figures.

The other thing that's a bit confusing,

picking up on what Angus said, on page 31, if you look at it quickly, the chart there

estimated homes up to 2 ,043, 660. Let's take another one, 400. And then the next column is

estimated up to 2 ,043 and beyond, 1 ,290, because what it's actually doing is adding the 400 in.

Okay. It is a little bit confusing because if you look at it quickly, you could think that the last

column is an additional, not as well as.

So I do think that it would need some extra column, which is estimated homes up to 2043,

estimated homes beyond, and then the combined total, because it is a bit confusing.

All right?

My next question is in relation to this point that's been made by the member of the public

and indeed by one of my colleagues here, about when can we, it was Ray, about when can we approach the other local authorities,

given that we are going to be a unitary and given that we have a requirement to make sure that our plan is deliverable and is robust,

but at the same time we are going to be working together, whether it's one unitary or two unitaries.

I don't quite see why we can't get together a little bit earlier on in the process.

So that's question number two.

Off the back of that, question number three is, in the scenario where we don't deliver

this plan, and to quote Mike, the government take over control of our planning process,

what actually happens when we become a unitary?

So if of the six local authorities, two of them find themselves having the planning process

removed from them and then we're one or two unitaries, what then happens?

It seems to me a little bit bizarre because we could just be one complete unitary authority

as that gentleman said, having been put into certain measures and having the planning process

taken away from us.

That's question number three.

Question number four is the sites themselves.

At the moment, if you're sitting in Driffield, Preston, whatever,

you speculate about where these sites are.

North, south, east, west.

No one, everyone's guessing at who the landowners are.

Is that confidential and how long does it remain confidential?

Why is it confidential if we're trying to be transparent?

In Andy Cruces' case, the assumption is it's the Schroders

that are making the land available.

In the case of Driffield, the assumption is it's the Fords.

That may or may not be right.

And it's creating all sorts of tensions within those communities.

So that was my four questions.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:35:44

I think on the first point, David, in terms of the numbers, I think you make a good point

but the current size of Antony Cruces isn't stated anywhere in that table,

where it is for, I think, all of the other settlements,

because they've all got their pier somewhere else

other than in that right -hand column.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:36:18

So I do think we probably need to consider how, if we can amend that.

It seems true of Preston and Siddington.

It's not true of Preston and Siddington

because the current dwellings for Preston and Siddington...

It's not the case for amni cruces.

On the second point, I don't think it's confusing.

It's up to the reader, but I think it's written quite clearly.

Having a third column means you've got another column of numbers.

I think it's clear, but obviously that's a matter for our communications.

It's about your rights, David.

The point is making it as clear as possible to the public.

What we're trying to do with this table is say, the first column is how many homes we

I think we'll get up to 2043.

And the second column is how many homes

we might get in total,

but we can think about whether the wording might be better.

We did look at that and try to make sure

it was absolutely as clear as possible.

And I think on the approach to other authorities,

that's already happening.

And I think Jerry may have spoken to that earlier.

And I'm sure officers can answer the point

about sites and speculation.

Thank you for that, Mike.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:37:31

Do you want to come in on that at all?

Thank you.

Officer - 1:37:38

Yes, I'm sure Helen wants to come in as well, but with regard to the duty to cooperate,

yes, we have started those conversations with our neighbours,

and we will be officially writing to all of our neighbours to set out where we are.

But the way that that works in them helping us is not just them saying,

yes, we can take 5 ,000 of your houses now.

we have to demonstrate that we can't.

So we have started those conversations.

They are aware of the difficulties that we believe

we will be able to demonstrate.

So that's a process which is ongoing and which is impossible

to sort of give an early view on now until we've gone through

the process of demonstrating where our target sits and how

much we believe that of that we can actually deliver.

And then I think with regard to the to the wider aspect of local government

reorganisation, I think has been mentioned before this plan if adopted

will be in situ until such a time as the new unitary or unitaries decide that

they wish to have a further spatial development plan in their area but they

don't need to provide that for another five years. So what we want to avoid for

Cotswolds and this comes down to the legacy for the Cotswolds is not to be

to surrender ourselves to speculative housing and we believe that the only way

that we can do that is to is to have a local plan painful though it may be but

sets out the best possible location for this level of development. Speculative

development will always come in under the radar in respect to the scale of

development so you will not get the infrastructure that is required and that's the main

difficulty with speculative development

because it won't deliver the infrastructure which is absolutely what communities need

if we are to build communities, not just housing as

Councillor said earlier.

If that's helpful. The issue of infrastructures

Councillor David Fowles - 1:39:46

My understanding of infrastructure is it's funded,

has been, quite often by developers,

and they fund it off the sale of their houses.

So I've always had a problem that getting infrastructure

to come first.

Who's going to pay for it?

That's why you need large -scale strategic developments.

That's why a site like the Steddings.

So if the Steddings had been allocated for a smaller number

of units of homes, then the amount of infrastructure that

development will provide would not have been the same.

it would have been scaled down quite considerably.

And when you have, just to make a point for the meeting,

when you have a provider of one particular piece of

infrastructure or utility, Thames Water,

who are incompetent, they are useless.

I hope that everyone can hear that.

They can't even supply proper mains and drainage

to existing settlements.

To expect them to be in a position to get involved

in this is frankly nothing short of a joke.

That is part of the due diligence, I should say,

that Helen mentioned earlier.

Officer - 1:40:52

So that's part of the process which we will be looking at.

These sites need to be deliverable.

And if we have utilities which are unable or incapable

within the lifetime of the plan to upgrade systems

if system upgrades are required, then that site is not deliverable.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:41:13

Thank you. Does anybody have any other... oops, Councillor van, Councillor Slater.

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:41:20

Oh sorry. Mine's very briefly a comment. I think this afternoon has been quite invaluable. We've

had three experts and it's enabled me certainly to have a much more rounded view of what's going on

and gives me a start to be able to explain to town councils. Thanks.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:41:42

Thank you. Actually, Angus was before you. I didn't spot it. And then I'm later. I don't mind.

Councillor Tony Slater - 1:41:50

It's just a quickie and an observation on infrastructure, obviously. We've got a lot of development in Simon and Sastra already, and potentially a tsunami of buildings coming along in the next few years. But the hospital is actually reducing capacity and services. So I'm just confused where that all ties up.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:42:14

I think that's obviously a matter for potentially colleagues who do their health scrutiny.

I know there's a panel there across Gloucestershire to question what the NHS is doing because

clearly we're looking at planning here.

We've been asked to plan for a lot more people to live in our district, yet services are

being reduced at one of the two major largest hospitals,

healthcare facilities in our district.

So yes, you make a good point, Tony.

You know, we shouldn't be reducing services

at the point where we've been asked to provide more homes.

Well, thank you.

And Angus.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:42:55

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:42:57

Thank you again, Chair.

So I just want to return to the question of timing.

I think that we are here this afternoon and revisiting it

because let's say we changed our minds

about what we were going to put out.

As a result of that, what we now have is

that instead of six weeks,

that terminates quite a bit before Christmas,

not that much, but a chunk before Christmas,

we now have five weeks and then holiday period.

That's basically what it is.

During that holiday period, dubious as to whether all of our services and offices and

so forth will be active and so on.

But we're going to potentially ask the parishes who are less resourced in the towns to treat

that period also as a week for the six weeks.

It literally is more than six weeks, but practically I don't think it is.

And under those circumstances, given the way that our communities are already responding

to this situation and the need for goodwill, I really do want to ask you whether it wouldn't

be a good idea for ONS to recommend to you that you give another week at the new year.

How much real impact would that week have on your ability to deliver this on time? I

know that every week counts. I know that it's a critical issue, but we've already put it

back because we changed our mind. Now I'd like to ask you, given that we would probably

have not done very much over the Christmas period anyway. How critical is

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:45:03

it that we do not give another week? Thank you. Thank you. I feel that Mike

might want to come back on this one. Or Helen first. Thank you. Yeah, the

Officer - 1:45:11

response is it is really critical that we limit it to that time period that

we're proposing in the report and we'll be asking cabinet to approve tomorrow.

The reason is when we finish this consultation the team have to take all the representations. They have to consider them

They have to report on them

They have to think do we need to make any changes as a result to inform the next stage and also as a result of that

As I said before some sites may fall away

We need to then take what is in the current document to then do the further due diligence

So if you take the examples of sites and looking at a transport assessment

We don't want to be sending sites that fall away because that's a waste of time money effort

We need to make sure all the sites that we may progress to 19 are in that system

So that the timetable has a number of things that can happen in parallel

But there are things that happen in sequence and we have to finish the consultation to consider the repit

Representations to know which sites to send off to have further due diligence done on them

So any delay or further?

Consultation period then has to foreshorten the time our consultants have because the the dead stop date at the end of submission cannot move and

and therefore everything else within it would be condensed if we move that.

It's really important that our consultants have the time that they need.

It's really important when we go to the Regulation 19, we have all the evidence that we need

and that that period of consultation has to be a minimum of six weeks as well.

So there are things we can't move and there are things that we need to do and I have time for.

So the officer perspective of this is that we really do not have the luxury of being able to extend that timetable

because it will have a ripple impact on other pieces of work

that are interdependent on the information coming out of the consultation.

Thank you.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:46:53

I hear you, but we have reserves in case we need more resources.

I especially asked those questions in the past.

So we have reserves in case we need more resources to progress this.

So what I'm asking is in the best interests of the plan's success

and acceptance by our communities, would it not be better to use some of those extra resources

in order to be able to do some of the work a little bit quicker?

Could I come back in, Chair? Thank you. I appreciate the point that Angus makes,

and he, as ever, makes it very eloquently. I'm very mindful of, as in my role as Chair of the

This issue was raised with me last week, and it was Councillor van raised it with me in the first instance.

I did have had conversations with the officers on this, and I do appreciate the point he makes.

I think in mitigation for not changing the date, there has been more publicity and the longer

period in advance of the consultation starting than there would have been otherwise. Indeed, the events

that we have tonight in Moreton for parish and town councils and in Syrinsester next Monday

were due to be during the period. They will now be in advance of the period. So I think,

so essentially the only thing that we're suggesting we move is a start and end date,

but things like those events are still happening as scheduled. So I do appreciate the point Angus

makes. I don't think we're really in a position to be able to go beyond the 2nd of January.

and do understand and apologise if that inconvenience is particularly some of our parish councillors

who may need to schedule an extra meeting.

But I think in the interests of this process and getting to a robust plan by the end of

December next year, I do think we need to stick with the timeline that the officers

are proposing to us.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:48:55

I appreciate your point of view and I understand what it is and I imagine that my colleagues

do as well but we'll see how they take it.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:49:08

Officer - 1:49:10

Thank you chair. I mean if it's helpful I was in a meeting before this

meeting with our consultants who are going to be providing flood risk

strategic flood risk assessment to support the local plan and the water

cycling assessment and survey work and that meeting was with the Environment

agency. We all had to agree that the timescales are very, very tight on that. And that is

by way of a good example that actually putting more resources towards that particular consultant

or even the environment agency actually won't speed up the delivery of that piece of work,

just by way of example.

Thank you, Chair.

The recommendation I would make is to make sure that Matt and the communications team

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:49:56

put out a more detailed communication strategically

to explain just why it is so urgent that we go at.

Because I think that would also support the general principle.

Don't try and put roadblocks up in this process

because it is not helpful.

And that is a really critical message we have to get across.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:50:17

I think actually backing up, there's

things that, like anything which is planned

and by whoever, governments, companies, individuals, they tend to slip the time rather than get

ahead of time and that's an historical sort of fact of life. So we really don't have the

luxury of time here and I think that is what people seem to understand because if we don't

get this through in time then we are really at the risk for the 19th session, whatever

is much, much more difficult.

So I do understand it.

What I was going to suggest, thinking

and hearing everybody today, and there's

a lot of strong feelings around, it's very important,

which is what Councillor Jenkinson is alluding to,

that we make the communications to the residents

straightforward but very clear to see so they can actually

understand, A, the importance, the need for it

to be done in this particular time, the way they can do it.

And I think obviously the emphasis

that if they can do, make their representations online,

that is going to help enormously and be more effective.

Even if they send a lovely handwritten letter

and everything else, it will actually

be copied into the computer system.

So it won't have quite the impact.

However, it will be that handwritten fountain pen,

as my Councillor Jackson likes to use, it won't have any stronger impact than the one

that they would put online. But I don't know what everybody else feels, whether we actually

would have a recommendation that we really feel that it's so important that the explanation

ahead of the consultation, an introduction to it, makes these points clearly. How would

you'd like me or the words to be spring to my mind, but that's what I just feel.

It is to support you, Mike, in this.

Mike would like to come in here.

I mean, it's a supportive view.

I understand that if it's helpful, Chair, as I mentioned earlier on,

we can make that really clear in terms of what we're doing tomorrow at the Cabinet.

and I will obviously be seeing our Head of Communications this afternoon, this evening,

and can relay the views of the committee to him in advance,

and have the ability to watch it back.

But I think it's absolutely totally understandable point,

and what I am confident is we have a very strong communications team

with a very effective Head of Communications,

and they've been doing an awful lot of work.

and our members have been very impressed when they see the work at the exhibitions,

at the Town of Parish forums that we're doing to inform the public and encourage them to take

part in this consultation because that's a really important thing that everybody feels they can take

part, everyone expresses their view, whatever that view is, so that we can consider that

as we go forward.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:53:31

Yes, I think that it's just that some people get quite daunted. I mean, it's quite a challenging

document consultation to go through. So to assist people to embark on the task in the first place and to get involved.

Yes, I might have got the recommendation carefully written up by me, but with help from Andrew.

If everybody felt that that's what they would like to.

So, if, actually, Andrew, if you could read that,

because I have got my glasses, don't quite get to see that.

So, there was the point about communicating the timeline

Andrew Brown, Officer - 1:54:07

and why the consultation, you know, period is fixed,

and that there was also a point about communicating how communities

can make valid contributions and what the material consideration might be.

So if you're happy to wrap those points up.

So I've got the, that the council clearly communicates

to town and parish councils and the public,

one, why the local plan timetable is fixed

and the regulation 18 consultation cannot be extended

and two, how respondents can make value contributions

and what the material planning considerations are

in relation to the local plan.

Something along those lines.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:54:51

I'd say it's not just that it's fixed, it's that we need it to be achieved.

It's critical to us, to our neighbourhoods that we get through this really fast on the

timeline.

It's not to meet somebody else's requirements, although they've imposed it on us, but it's

for our own benefit.

Andrew Brown, Officer - 1:55:11

Yes, and it was all, yeah, so, and also communicating the importance of getting a local plan in

place at the earliest opportunity to prevent speculative development.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:55:23

And that is very important because I think people, it is actually to defend the Cotswolds,

it's not to open up the Cotswolds, and that's what it's to support.

Who would like to propose and second this?

I'll propose it.

Okay, okay.

I'll second it because it wasn't there.

Okay, and then -

Show of hands.

And show of hands to -

And thank you, the list of those key points of material planning considerations that will

be shared with the Cabinet, ahead of the Cabinet.

Mike, have you got anything else that you would like to add at the end of the meeting?

Just on behalf of Juliet and myself to thank you and the members of the committee for the

thorough way in which you dealt with this item both today and in the previous meeting.

And I look forward to seeing many of you at either the event tonight in Moreton or the

one on Monday in Sirencester.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:56:18

I would just, we've thanked the officers a lot,

and rightly so, but I think we should remember

the role of Juliette and Mike in this,

because it's easy for us to sit here

representing our communities and getting defensive

about Amity Crucis or Triffield or Morton,

but when you've got to wear both hats,

look after your community and look after the interests

of the Council. I think the two of you do a brilliant job and thank you for the

energy you're putting into it. I really appreciate that. Thank you David.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:56:55

Thank you everybody attending this extra meeting. I really

appreciate it. Thank you very much indeed.

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Wednesday 5 November 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeWednesday, 5th November 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:02

1 Apologies

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:01

2 Substitute Members

4 Public Questions

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:47

Public Speaker - 0:02:58

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:06:04

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:06:48

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:07:14

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:08:37

Officer - 0:08:46

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:09:51

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:09:54

6 Cotswold District Council Local Plan Review Preferred Options November 2025

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:12:25

Officer - 0:12:40

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:15:35

Public Speaker - 0:15:44

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:15:45

Officer - 0:15:50

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:15:52

Councillor David Fowles - 0:15:58

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:19:17

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:22:24

Councillor David Fowles - 0:22:27

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:23:37

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:30

Officer - 0:25:37

Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:37

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:31:14

Councillor Tony Slater - 0:31:45

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:34:50

Officer - 0:34:58

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:37:13

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:37:23

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:38:17

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:38:33

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:40:49

Officer - 0:42:15

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:45:57

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:14

Officer - 0:47:02

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:47:44

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:47:50

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:49:10

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:50:11

Officer - 0:50:16

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:50:57

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:51:01

Officer - 0:51:14

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:51:43

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:51:45

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:52:42

Officer - 0:52:47

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:53:28

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:54:00

Officer - 0:54:13

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:54:32

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:54:42

Officer - 0:55:51

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:56:27

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:56:46

Officer - 0:56:51

Officer - 0:57:10

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:57:28

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:58:08

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:58:49

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday, 5th November 2025 at 2:00pm