Cabinet - Thursday 6 November 2025, 6:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Cabinet
Thursday, 6th November 2025 at 6:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Juliet Layton
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Juliet Layton
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Mike Evemy
  4. Officer
  5. Councillor Mike Evemy
  6. Councillor Juliet Layton
  7. Councillor Mike Evemy
  8. Officer
  9. Councillor Mike Evemy
  10. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  11. Councillor Mike Evemy
  12. Councillor Angus Jenkinson
  13. Councillor Mike Evemy
  14. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  15. Councillor Mike Evemy
  16. Officer
  17. Councillor Mike Evemy
  18. Councillor Juliet Layton
  19. Councillor Mike Evemy
  20. Councillor Mike McKeown
  21. Councillor Mike Evemy
  22. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  23. Councillor Mike Evemy
  24. Officer
  25. Councillor Mike Evemy
  26. Officer
  27. Councillor Mike Evemy
  28. Officer
  29. Councillor Mike Evemy
  30. Councillor Juliet Layton
  31. Councillor Juliet Layton
  32. Councillor Mike Evemy
  33. Councillor Juliet Layton
  34. Councillor Mike Evemy
  35. APPROVE an addition to the Local Plan consultation document
    Status: In progress
  36. Councillor Mike Evemy
  37. Webcast Finished

1 Apologies

1 Apologies

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:00:02
Good evening colleagues and welcome to this extraordinary meeting of the cabinet and we'll
move to apologies.
I think we have apologies from Councillors Blumer and Hodgkinson.
Is that correct?
And the other members of the cabinet are all present.

2 Declarations of Interest

Does any member or officer have any declaration of interest that would wish

3 Public Questions

to make to the meeting? No. Are there any members come questions from members of
the public? I can't see any members of the public present so I take that there

4 Member Questions

are not. Are there any member questions looking over at Democratic Services

5 Issue(s) Arising from Overview and Scrutiny and/or Audit and Governance

colleagues that we've received in advance of this meeting. They're shaking
their heads so no we don't have any. So agenda item five is the issues arising
from overview and scrutiny and or audit and governance. There was a meeting
yesterday of the overview and scrutiny committee which Councillor
Layton and myself attended virtually. A very good and thorough meeting, nearly
two hours long and off the back of that we do have a recommendation from the
overview and scrutiny committee and if I reach the recommendation and then
Juliet will respond on behalf of the cabinet. So the recommendation from the
OVN scrutiny committee was that the council clearly communicates to town and
parish councils and the wider public a the importance of getting a local plan
in place at the earliest opportunity in order to manage development appropriately and prevent
piecemeal speculative development brackets which won't provide supporting infrastructure.
B, why the local plan timeline is fixed and the Regulation 18 consultation cannot be extended.
And C, how respondents can make valid contributions and what the material planning considerations
are in relation to the local plan.
So I'm going to hand over to Julia.
It's quite a long response but a very thorough one hopefully to the overview and scrutiny committee.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:02:23
Yes, hopefully it is very thorough.
So, information on the importance of getting a local plan in place as soon as possible
and why the timelines for consultation cannot be extended
and the planning grounds for which objections, representations can be made clear to the wider public.
Indeed, this work is well underway.
Eight news releases have been issued on or in relation to the Council's
local plan since July. All of these have been published on the Council's website,
on social media, in its newsletters and in media outlets and they all reference
the urgency around getting a local plan in place and the work being undertaken.
As part of a comprehensive communications and engagement plan being
executed over the coming weeks, targeting diverse audiences in different ways through
both paid -for advertisements, owned Council social newsletters and websites, and earned
media partners and channels. We will reiterate the message in part A of the recommendation
and tie in a message set out in part B and C where appropriate and relevant. This will
include all presentations to over 160 town and parish
councillors at council -run forums.
One was hosted last night, which Mike and I were at,
at Moreton and Marsh, and one to be held in Syrinsester
on Monday the 10th.
Four public exhibitions in locations across the district.
The parish council organised public meetings
that officers and members have been invited to.
indeed Mike's going to one this evening along with one of the officers. Regular
members briefings by email, on web pages via Q &A's and we're collating all the
questions submitted to date and all which have been asked for at events and
sharing those for councillors and public to use. We will continue to update as
events occur throughout the consultation period. On social media our content on
this topic, designed to engage and inform, is performing well, having reached over 81 ,000
people since July. We will be utilising paid and organic posts via our regular email newsletters,
Local Plan Business General, which have more than 8 ,000 combined subscribers, and through
community compacts, which are being shared with town and parish councils for sharing
with their residents, encouraging participation in the upcoming consultation which will provide
guidance on material feedback for planning consideration. This will all be in addition
to messaging on the Local Plan already planned to go out in the coming days and weeks. This
includes a printed newsletter going through the letterbox of every household in the district,
advertising on busses, posters and leaflets in all council loan assets, IMAC
leisure centres and car parks. Moreton area centre, Mac, I think Julia. Oh, moreton area centre, sorry!
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:06:15
Sorry, I've realised I've just not been using my microphone.
So thank you very much, Juliet, for the answer to your question.
And thank you again to the overview and scrutiny committee
for raising the point recommendation that you gave.
I'd note that the vice chair is here, and thank you, Angus,
for being here when we get to the substantive discussion.
We'll bring you in.
But if there's anything you want to say in response
to Juliet's answer, feel free to say anything now.
But obviously I'm happy to bring you in later if you want to
when we get to the substantive item.
So thank you very much for that.
So that's the items for from overview and scrutiny.

6 Cotswold District Local Plan Regulation 18 - Preferred Options November 2025.

So we'll now move on to agenda item six,
the only substantive, well, the remaining substantive item
on our agenda this evening.
This is for us to look at an updated version
of the consultation document
for the local plan regulation 18 consultation
on preferred options for development and to amend the consultation date. So I'm
going to hand over to Juliet just to introduce this and then we're going to
go to Helen Martin our Director of Communities and Place and her team to
talk to us about the changes that have been made both in advance of this where
these agenda as were published to the Red Consultation document and also some
proposed changes that we're being asked to consider in light of feedback that
we've had on the draught consultation documents through the we had obviously
as Juliet referred to we have them invented Morton last night with parish
and town council some very good points were raised then and we want to make
this document as best as we can possibly make it before we go out and share it
with the public in the formal consultation.
So I'm just going to hand over now to Juliet to introduce.
And yeah, over to you, Juliet.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:08:22
Thank you very much.
Well, I'd like to commend our team, because the reaction
and how quickly they reacted to what people were telling us
last night up until nearly 9 o 'clock in the evening.
Well, we had to close, actually.
It was before 9 o 'clock, though.
We were getting this information that people
would like to see in this document.
And the whole team, the planning and the forward planning team,
have been working really hard changing this.
As Mike said, we are just looking at slight amendment
to our Reg 18 consultation preferred option papers,
which we looked at last month.
But it's amazing how quickly we've responded to what people
have said, what the ONS has said.
and thank you ONS for meeting in such a quick and timely manner
so we can get this document prepared and printed for tomorrow.
But last month the council published its draught preferred strategy options
for future housing development.
And this was in response to a sharp rise in government imposed targets
for new homes in the district ahead of a consultation beginning in November.
With the preferred development strategy options document,
We set up... sorry there's funny banging going on. Oh, fireworks. I beg your pardon. Fireworks.
With a preferred development strategy option document we set out how many
homes could be delivered across the district between now and 2043, the 18
year local plan period and where broadly where these homes could go. This
This included 6 ,820 new homes on strategic sites.
Land that could be available for new homes,
which would extend existing towns or villages,
will see the development of new settlements.
This included land around Kemble, Moreton in Marsh,
Fairford, Driffield, Syrinsester, Preston,
Siddington and Antony Cruces.
Now to strengthen the upcoming consultation
and ensure residents have full view
of the full potential development of these broad locations,
we are tonight being asked to consider
an updated preferred options consultation document.
Revisions to this document show
that the early total estimated number of homes,
an additional 7 ,280 that could be delivered
up to and beyond 2043 on those strategic sites.
These numbers were due to be published
in technical evidence documents
to support the consultation.
However, by amending the preferred options consultation
document and being transparent about prospective long -term
development, residents will now also get an opportunity
to have their say on housing delivery and infrastructure
well beyond 2043.
This means the local plan would need to include the whole site,
even if much of the building happens after 2043.
Because of this, it's important that the consultation also looks at the total amount of development that could take place on these larger sites, including what might be built beyond 2043.
It does, however, mean the indicative total number of homes on some strategic sites is significantly larger when considered over the long term.
A housing delivery after 2043 would count against future local plan target rather than
the housing target of our current local plan update that's being progressed.
So while only homes delivered by 2043 count towards the government target, publishing
the full potential development of these broad strategic locations allows for early conversations
about roads, schools, healthcare and upfront infrastructure investment.
As with the previous draught, the consultation document, the numbers...
Oh, I'm sorry, blank there. Sorry.
Critically, we are moving to the start date of the consultation from the 5th of November,
and we're going now to the Friday the 14th of November,
but we're also extending it to a seven -week period.
We understand that this may cause some inconvenience for town and parish
councillors which may need to meet in December when they wouldn't usually but
regrettably we're unable to accommodate a further extension to the consultation
period. The programme to deliver the local plan is running on a very tight timetable
with little scope for slippage. It is important that we have a sufficient time
to give full and proper consideration to the representations received as they feed into and influence the next stages of plan preparation and the formal stages of consultation and submission.
The dates which are immovable if we are to submit to the planning inspector by December 26th, and that is the government is telling us that is the date we have to do this for.
So thank you. I can hand over to Helen now who can take us through some of the
Officer - 0:13:48
recommendations and changes. Thank you. Thank you Julia and Helen is going to
attempt to share this on screen with us and also we've also joined on screen by
Matt Britton from Helen's team. So it looks like we've managed to do it which
is great thank you that and so what Helen is going to take us through is
what's different to the papers that we've I think got in front of us because
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:14:08
the papers that we have in front of us were changed in order to accommodate as
Juliet just described the additional homes beyond the 2043 period in the
consultation document but you're just gonna take us through I think Helen's
and the final changes to the document based on the feedback listening to the
feedback that we've already had yeah to make it absolutely as I said earlier the
best possible document that we can to engage the residents and the people in
Officer - 0:14:34
the district. Thanks, over to you Helen. Thank you and with your permission I'm
going to do a page turn because it's probably easier than trying to point you
to the original document. So there are track changes which hopefully you can
see on the screen. The first change is to the narrative to reflect the fact that
we're now including the post 24 numbers and potential allocations. So we've just
expanded narrative that was in there before to say so this may require the
allocation of sites to continue beyond the end of the current plan period and
Words reflecting those changes then carry on through the document as you'll see here
We've also one of the comments that was made previously and also in some of the engagement events was
Clarification of what we mean by regulation 18 stage so we've put there then in this current stage of consultation
But but in brackets the technical term for it
So there are I think a couple of points in the document where we've made that clarification
Excuse me while I just move to next changes.
So for obvious reasons we've changed paragraph 1 .15 to
reflect the new proposed consultation dates.
Then we get into the various different spatial elements of
it, so we've provided a couple of footnotes that give
clarifications on points that have been raised by members
in the past.
So this one, below 2 .4, is to do with the standard methodology
and how we calculate homes, so how we've got the 1036 per year number.
We have another note there saying the figures provided in the scenarios are indicative.
This is a theme that came through a number of the cabinet meetings and overview and scrutiny
and also some of the public consultations as making it clear that the scenarios are indicative
and subject to change.
So these numbers, when we do further due diligence, sites may fall away,
sites may come in and numbers may go up or they may go down.
So the scenarios remain unchanged other than some typing and formatting. The
first then main substantive change under scenario five is the reference again to
the looking at strategic sites a vision of 30 years hence and the reality of
what that means in this plan so not just part of this being delivered in this
plan period but the allocation carrying forward to future plans and future years
so that we can comprehensively seek to ensure infrastructure is provided.
At 6 .21 that was just a typo it said scenario 3 and it should be
scenario 5.
We are getting to some amended sections to do with the indicative figures.
So again, we have provided further clarification on breakdown of figures.
One of the comments that we have, and apologies here, it says appendix one, but we have now
put it into the main body of the document, there was a lot of feedback and discussion
around breaking down the figure for some of the smaller numbers and the settlements.
So not the strategic sites, but the other numbers
on that original table two on the left hand side
of the columns.
And some of the conversation was how,
because we explained that that was composed
by existing extant planning permissions,
allocations in the current plan that may travel forward
and an assumption on windfall provision.
So in some cases, and Blockly's a really good example
of this, there is no additional dwellings
on top of what we already know.
And therefore, on a number of occasions,
we've been asked to break down that figure.
So the new table two deletes the strategic sites.
That now appears on the table below,
but breaks down those figures to allow more clarity
and understanding and show where there is new growth
or where there is just existing knowns
that we are travelling forward in the plan with.
And 3 .7 seeks to sort of explain that a bit further.
I'll read it for your benefit.
So it says it's important to note
that some settlements have many homes
that already have planning permission
or are allocated for development
in the already adopted local plan.
For example, Syrinsester has 2 ,306 homes already with planning permission, which are largely attributed to the steadings.
The total number of homes, therefore, does not necessarily mean that additional sites will be allocated in the local plan.
And if you cross -refer to that table, it will indicate to readers which ones do have growth and which ones do not have additional growth.
So we've got some clarification at 3 .16 relating to, again, making it clear what a regulation
18 is, and this one's in reference to Morton and Marsh, and assessing the feasibility of
strategic development, and we're currently underweighting the evidence.
It's just a slight reword there to reflect where we are currently.
So this is the new, I'll try and, sorry, I'll zoom out a little bit, and then you might
see it better.
So this is the new table.
What you would have seen before was existing dwellings and a total number,
which is, I'm not sure if you can see my cursor very easily,
but it's the one, two, three, four, five, six column along under additional dwellings.
You would have seen that number.
We've now broken it down to, in the third column, extant planning permissions,
the fourth remaining adopted local plan site allocations, and in the fifth windfalls.
So you add them all together, you get them the sixth column.
So hopefully it makes it clear to readers.
and then the final column in bold is the total estimated number of homes within
the plan period. That goes over a couple of pages as you might imagine.
Then we have, oh sorry. I asked you just go back a little bit and just leave that
on the screen a little bit longer. Okay, there are three pages. Particularly for the second page.
because I was looking down and one settlement was missing on the first page.
Thank you.
Okay, and the third and final page is the deletions of what was there was just a
correction and then because that no longer includes strategic site
information we have a new paragraph that explains development beyond 2043 so the
strategic sites allocations and then we repeat what was originally in table 2
but now separated out for clarity the strategic site estimated homes to 2043
and those are likely to be delivered up to 43 and beyond. And in the table below
that shows total growth in the relevant settlements up to and beyond that so
current dwellings and the number in the table above.
The next couple are just clarifications or amendments to wording.
So one of the comments that came out of open -source unit yesterday was we shouldn't talk about
indicative amount of homes but indicative numbers.
So we've reflected that and amended the phraseology accordingly.
We have amended question four in light of the fact that we now are proposing strategic
allocations to make sure we can ask residents and communities specifically a question about
So we've added the words up to 2043 and beyond the end of the current plan period as well,
so we can seek their thoughts at this stage.
These maps remain unchanged, although we have had a bit of feedback about the size of the
pie chart.
So you will notice Morton and Simon Sester on the next one are slightly bigger, but there
is in bold here at points as settlement sites are not to scale.
They are for demonstration purposes, and the significance is the proportion of the orange,
green and pink within those circles and again if you cross reference back to
those tables I've just been through it will give you the numbers that sit
behind those those coloured areas. We had some comments about being clear about
this triangle on the Preston Driffield and we have added a key to the
table so it's clear where it relates to and that these are obviously areas of
general indication rather than specifics.
Again, clarification of the Regulation 18 stage.
And I think that is the majority of the amendments that we have
made to the documents.
So as summed up at the beginning,
these are partly to reflect the fact we're now including
strategic allocations post 2043, but also a reflection of the
feedback we've had from overview and scrutiny and some of the
public events that have been held to date.
So there are a number of changes to the body of the text.
There are some clarifications to the tables,
and there are some clarifications to some
of the graphics as well.
And further work will be done on FAQs,
but they don't affect the consultation document.
And as Councillor Layton said, we are due to print tomorrow,
so we'll be very grateful for your feedback
so that we can make final amends and produce a final document.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:23:22
Thank you.
Thank you.
Helen, Juliet, come back straightaway.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:23:28
I'm just going to come back with something very straightaway
and very minor actually because I was looking at this afternoon
while it was in action and I, what you're showing me is well
ahead of what my laptop's kept up with.
But one of the things that I was noticing was the formatting
and we've got footnotes that are in the wrong places or because
you've added things and I just want to make sure that it's very
easy when we're doing work so quickly and making changes and
putting in paragraphs that things move around.
And I think it's very important that we get it right.
And I know it'll be tricky, but that's a minor thing
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:24:08
for the moment.
Thank you, Julia.
Senior Andrea, I just wanted to pick up a couple of things
that I spotted.
It just did that going through that I think that there was
a mismatch in the new table.
It was the settlement on the bottom, which might have been
Siddington, that the number on one table was, I think, 1 ,100,
and the number in another table was 1130,
when I just saw it go through in front of my eyes.
I'm sure you'll be tagging all this stuff up,
but we just obviously need to make sure that's correct.
And then I think in question four,
there's a spare in within question four
that doesn't need to be there.
I'm gonna go to, so I'm very conscious of that.
So that you've shared with us,
it's obviously we've only seen it on the screen,
but we haven't had a chance to have a look at that
in terms of but obviously I'll be guided by members but you have talked us
through the substantive changes that have been made which include those that
have been made already in the agenda and they also include
but you want to come back to me with something else so I'll go back to you
Officer - 0:25:15
Helen. Thank you, just been advised that we do have time to circulate it to
members so they can read a copy we will obviously cheque for those errors and
missions before we do that and then if we can do that but have delegated
authority for any minor amends arising from the feedback of members having
reviewed it then we could maybe deal with it that way. Okay so I think what
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:25:37
we'll then agree in terms of the recommendations that there will be
essentially you will circulate that to to the cabinet because ultimately it's
our decision and we will essentially delegate to yourself and Councillor
and the final decision on any minor tweaks,
but I understand given where we are in the timeline
that we have to get our final document tomorrow.
So there isn't a lot of time for people
to go through further discussion.
So really at this point, we're just picking up any errors
that we can find.
And I think in the document, I will come back to you
in both of you and just shortly,
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:26:19
but I'm gonna go to Councillor Pellegram now.
Thank you very much.
This is a tiny, tiny point and I haven't read it.
I just saw like little letters.
I couldn't read them.
You referred to it as a standard methodology but I think it's a standard method in the
footnote.
Okay.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:26:41
All right.
I've got some comments.
I've seen Tristan and Mike and I will bring you in.
Angus, would you like to come in now or would you like to hear other members of the Cabinet?
I can come in now.
Yeah, okay.
I'll invite you to come in as Angus Jenkinson is the Vice Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
As I mentioned, we're looking at this document.
Obviously, they haven't seen the very final changes that have been proposed, but in large
number that many of those are as a consequence of the work of the Committee.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:27:13
So I'll go to you, Angus.
Thank you very much, Chair and Committee and to the planning team.
I've got four brief points to make on behalf of overview and scrutiny about this.
The first point that I would like to make is that we'd like to thank you for the attention to the issues that we brought up
and appreciate the way that you are responding to them seriously.
There was a phrase used by you, Helen, yesterday that certainly caught my ear and I think others
during the meeting when we were asking about Regulation 18 and what it was. It's just a
coded name. And you used the term, well, it's really options and issues. And I for one caught
that as a very useful term. Now, you may think there's an even better one, but being able
to talk about it as an options and issues regulation 18.
And after that, maybe it goes back to regulation 18.
But something that characterises the nature in that way,
and I thought that was a very useful phrase.
It's a suggestion for the cabinet.
I do want to emphasise to the cabinet
that ONS was absolutely united
on the fact that the government plans
are wildly inappropriate.
We were completely adamant on this point,
and I'd like you to take note of that
and make sure that it continues to remain
an important part of the communication.
I also want to say that during the process
we were very concerned about the Christmas period
interrupting or interfering with the ability
of local parishes, town councils to deal with this matter.
And I think we interrogated that very closely, including myself.
That being the case, I think it's important to say that as a result of that,
we were satisfied about the importance of the timeline that you were recommending.
but we went into it pretty thoroughly and
and challengingly. Under the circumstances
I would just personally add that it is really important to get the message
across because I recollect the last regulation 18
had a certain amount of disruptive activity which would not be at all helpful
this time around. So I think the message to all the
and so on is we do feel the concern, we do recognise it's not an ideal time, but we did
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:30:15
understand why it is so important and it remains important to be speedy. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Angus, and again for your contribution this evening and the way
in which your committee brought up these matters. And just in a brief response, the options
and issues. I certainly will look at that. I think, you know, it's using
language that the public can understand. A consultation helps the word without
having necessarily too many extra words that they can understand.
Because we're asking for people's opinions and tell us about things in their locality.
We will continue to perceive the issues around the wholly inappropriate,
wildly inappropriate targets as you describe them. I'll touch on that when I
speak a little bit later on and yeah you as you rightly said you did do your job
really effectively in terms of challenging us on the timeline and you
know certainly prior to that Julian and tonight had those conversations with
with the officers about the timeline because we are mindful that we are going
into a Christmas period but as you say we have we have seven weeks marrying
mind obviously the last couple of weeks are sort of the Christmas holiday a
holiday period but I think we also have already started the consultation
although it's not formally started till next week and we're having discussions
we had that meeting last night with town and parish councillors and clerks in
Morton and we'll be doing one next week in Cirencester before the actual
period has started so and I think you know what you've heard the response in
terms of from Juliet to the O &S recommendation that we're going to be
doing a lot of communications I don't think as many people are not going to know
We're talking about where we're going to put housing in the Cotswolds potentially
In the in the coming weeks, and you know that's obviously the work that our comms team are doing for us
So thank you very much for all your contributions. I'm going to now go to Tristan and then Mike
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:32:07
Thanks Mike actually you've you've discussed it quite well, so
Both Lechelade and Fairford have their council meetings next week
so they do not meet again during this consultation period.
So feedback from both of them is they're very concerned about that.
So I guess it's reassuring that that has been discussed at earnest.
I guess I still don't understand why it has to be the 2nd of January,
is that a legal requirement?
So it would be really good to get an understanding why we can't go
to the middle of January, for instance,
to give those parish councils the opportunity to meet before the deadline.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:32:44
I think well I think I'll and we've because we've been through that quite a
lot I think you're we you know aware that you know we've obviously trying to
hit the end of end of December and essentially looking at the timeline and
obviously I might go to Helen to give us a an officer response is that you know
with the timeline is is is challenging you know we said this said this when we
we went through the process and we agreed to do this back in July. We said the timeline
was challenging.
Officer - 0:33:37
Certainly, thank you. So we have to under law have a minimum of six weeks for a consultation
period. We started on the 14th that would basically be smack in the middle of the Christmas
period so that would not be an acceptable thing to do so we have given it an additional week which
takes us to the 2nd of January. We can't go any further than that because it then starts to create
pinch points in the rest of the programme and as the leaders pointed out we have got some quite
definitive stages we need to reach which is submission to the planning and spectra by the end
of December next year so that we get an adopted plan the following year. What happens when we
finish this consultation is we have to review all the representations we
receive, we have to consider how that feeds into the next stage of the plan,
does it make any amendments, does it change the sites that may come forward.
So for example if it turns out that a site is no longer available or
deliverable it won't go forward to have the due diligence done on it that all
the other sites built, so we won't put it through transport modelling and viability
assessments. That's really important because we have to do that due
diligence on all the sites that might be allocated and whilst there's some work we
can do concurrently some of the work is sequence so we have to finish one stage
to move to the next stage so if we extend the consultation period by week
it then pushes the timeline before we can go out to our consultants who are
already on a very challenging and tight timetable so what we don't want to do is
cause problems later down in the programme or remove any potential slippage that we
have built in because there isn't much left to play with and that there are
fixed deadlines at the end of that programme.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:35:08
Thanks.
Juliet?
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:35:11
Well, I'd also like to add to that that actually,
apart from the few additions we've just put in,
the government said we had to look, you know,
don't just look for your local plan period.
We've got to look 30 years because of infrastructure.
Before we put that in, which is why we're here tonight,
is we had approved this document and it went out live.
So, it's actually been in the public domain for nearly a month, not quite sure of a date,
but virtually a month.
And most of the towns and parishes have known about it, so they will have been able to review
it together, maybe earlier, but they've still had...
It's not like they're not gonna catch sight of this until the consultation opens.
they've already had it and they will have this a week ahead anyway because
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:36:06
it'll be published. Just to add to that and I think in your answer to your the
question from ONS earlier and I said this publicly at the forum last night
in Moreton and I would say it publicly in Cirencester on next Monday you know
that we do apologise for any inconvenience that that causes to
places such as Fairfield and Lechlade who weren't planning to meet in
in December who may now need to have an extra meeting to consider this, but I think as we've heard from
our officer, you know, we really didn't have any more leeway to go beyond this if we were going to keep to the timeline.
And yeah, so we recognise it's it may be a bit of inconvenience, but we hope that people will understand and publicly explaining that in front of people
including there were representatives from both Fairford and Letts Lake there last night, Tristan. I'm gonna go to Mike now.
Councillor Mike McKeown - 0:36:58
Thank you, Mike.
I'd just like to say a few words both as a cabinet member, but also as the Councillor
for Kemble Ward.
So first, a big thanks to Helen and the rest of the planning team.
You've done a really fantastic job of putting all this together and the modifications and
stuff.
So thank you.
It's been very professional and very clear.
When we approved the earlier draught consultation, I'd said at the time that the house and growth
proposed for Kemble was already huge.
Obviously driven by the government's, I think we just said ridiculous or mad, targets on housing,
which are more than double the district's targets and in Kemble by the fact that a local land owner has offered up a very significant parcel of land for development near the edge of Kemble.
So this evening paper doesn't really change that 2043 number for Kemble.
What it does is extend the horizon so that the public,
the Kemble residents can see what the build out
might look like beyond 2043.
And for Kemble, that means potentially roughly
3 ,000 new homes in total.
So that nearly troubles the size of what was previously
a relatively small village.
So the scale inevitably raises questions
about infrastructure, of course, like schools, drainage,
in this case, railway station access and parking.
and of course the basic character of the place.
And those are the sort of issues I think our residents will want to comment on,
and I encourage them to do so through the consultation.
It's important, as we've said, to be clear that this isn't CDC choosing to grow Kemble,
it's a combination of the national housing targets
and this legal duty that we have to test all land put forward,
and it's pretty substantial there.
and I share the residents concern about the potential impact and will continue to push
for a very much new infrastructure first planning and design that respects Kemble's identity
and indeed we're holding a consultation event in Kemble Village Hall at seven o 'clock on
Tuesday the 24th November where both the District Council and the Parish Council will be organising
and present, including myself.
Mike, thank you for coming along.
I know, Helen, you're going to be coming as well
to talk to the residents.
And I'd strongly encourage anybody listening or reporting
on this to do come along, ask questions, share your views,
and get consultation in there, because your voices really
do matter on how this is taken forward.
And your input will help us shape
how we respond to these pressures,
while really protecting what makes
is a very special place.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:39:42
Thank you, Mike.
I speak very eloquently on behalf of your communities.
And I'm going to go to Patrick.
And obviously, Campbell is one of the eight localities
where there may be strategic development.
There are indicative proposals for strategic,
so larger development in this plan,
which we are about to consult on.
I'm going to go to Patrick now.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:40:11
Gerald, I don't want to detain us any longer than is absolutely
necessary, but first of all, can I express my great appreciation
of the work done by the
the efficiency and speed of any overview and scrutiny committee. My own ward may
not suffer suffer may not gain much new housing under this plan due to its
characteristics but I did want to raise a brief question I'm looking for a brief
answer on how we calculate a figure for windfall housing. Windfall housing always
used to be underestimated in my long experience of in another county mainly
in local plans and I was always trying to get them to boost their estimate but
I think we've got over 600 windfall expected in Cirencester which is my
town and I don't think that's impossible but I think some of that depends a
little bit on accelerating or developing the move towards more accommodation
particularly in flats in town centres, in our town centre in particular.
I know our town council, which I'm also a member, has always supported the idea of a greater number
of people living in the town centre. It's sustainable, it helps with security and safety,
having more eyes on the street and the immortal words of that great American town planner from
all those years ago. So if there's a formula by which we calculate it, I'd be interested to know,
perhaps a written answer will suffice.
But it'll be very good.
The other thing about windfalls
is we need a constant supply of windfalls,
otherwise we risk approvals usually on appeal
for housing that's subject to flooding.
That's my understanding
and it's probably not the correct planning language.
So every time somebody gets one or two extra houses
in my ward, I'm quite happy,
as long as it's only one or two.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:42:21
Thank you, Patrick.
So I'm looking to officers,
I think Jo you might be coming back on the Patrick's point about windfalls and
Officer - 0:42:30
how they've been calculated. Yes thank you Councillor Evermy. So yeah so windfalls
are basically calculated using previous history basically of what's happened
over the last five to ten years. So what we look at is the windfall development
so those sites that haven't been allocated that come forward and then we
basically take that average to calculate that figure.
Obviously, that excludes certain types.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:43:04
Mike's cut out.
Officer - 0:43:09
So, yeah, sorry.
Yes, yeah, it excludes certain types of development.
And it also looks at build -out rates as well in terms of when
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:43:30
permission has been granted so so yes I hope that's that's helpful thank you
thank you I don't see any other members with their hands up I mean it does
Nikki would you know so if I just make some contributions myself and then if
anybody does want to come in before give final words to Councillor Leighton so
just picking up on I think Mike you spoke as I said very eloquently about
I'm very very aware you know I represent two communities that are in that
strategic site list. I'll be going along to Preston this evening together with
with Helen to talk about our plans and hear what people have to say and I
totally understand the anxiety which I'm sure I'm going to hear just not
in not to this evening of people there you know who fundamentally they live in
a small village and and the proposals in the plan if they were to come to come to
will significantly change the place that they live in.
And I understand that.
And I think us as members of this authority know the
challenge that this, what we've been, the situation
that we are currently in.
And as this body wanted to put on record, not just for
those two communities, but for all of the communities
where they are being proposed, what's in front
of us is a really significant change to their
local area or could be as I said a significant change and understand that
that will create anxieties and concerns and the point of the
consultation is that people engage tell us what those anxieties are concerns are
and what if if these plans go ahead what the things are that they would be
concerned about and make any suggestions about how those concerns could be
mitigated if it's all possible. I think you know what we've seen is that meeting
the government's targets in a district like ours that's so constrained by
protective landscape and limited infrastructure was always going to be a
really huge challenge and you know the size of the numbers is really hard to
come to terms with. It's wildly inappropriate I think Angus said. Totally
unrealistic I've been quoted as saying. Bonkers I think than my previous the
The former leader said, and you know,
that the anxiety and concern that that,
as I've just mentioned, could generate in our communities.
And I want to reassure those communities
and the wider district that we are making the case
to government, that, you know,
in terms about the scale of what they're asking us.
And since we last met, I wrote two weeks ago
to the new Secretary of State for Housing Communities
and local government and that letter that I sent was co -signed by the Leader
of the Opposition Conservative Group, the Leader of the Green Group and Councillor
End at the back of the room. So it was representing all 34 members of this
Council. We are united in this and asking them to look again at the targets
that they've given us, basically where we are, 80 % national landscape. But I think
know we recognise that we have to crack on and update our local plan because by
doing that we cannot we can control where development goes in our district
and that we get the infrastructure alongside it and you know I know the
these numbers are eye -watering but there are caveats you know here and it's
really important that we understand that the numbers are indicative we're about
consult on them and gather more evidence as Helen said earlier and look at the
feasibility of infrastructure. So you know we've already started on the
comprehensive plan of engagement in advance of the consultation launching
next Friday. We had a really positive meeting in Moreton last night with the
Town and Parish Council Councillors and the clerks and some of our ward
members from this council were there as well and so we're doing that again as I
said next week and those that session as well as the O &S session contributed I
think to the 13 in total I'm not sure we've allocated exactly which one came
from which but you know we're always willing to hear and listen to the
feedback but you know they do get I'm sure that that session last night and
the one next week will give us clear signals about how people feel about the
of these really unrealistic housing targets being posed on us by the
government and the real challenges that we've got in meeting them and you know
want to really hope that we work as one community together to respond in the
face of this. So really I can't encourage people enough to take part in the
consultation just tell us your views. We're going to be posting the link from
next Friday when it goes live so look out for that and what we really need and
obviously people can tell us whatever they want regarding what we're doing but
the things that our planning officers can take into account is things that are
in the public interest so what will be the effect on the amenity of local
residents issues around highways the impact on the environment the impact on
the economy the need for housing and community facilities so those are some
of the things but not that's not an exhaustive list of things that people can raise and our
planning officers can take in into account. So I just want to want to finish off by saying
a big thank you also to Councillor Layton and our officer team for all the work that
they are already put in and all the work that they will be putting in particularly over
the coming weeks and months and yeah really want to go to our communities
explain why we're doing this listen to what they've got to say and then when we
go beyond this period we'll then obviously be coming back for the
regulation 19 and next summer so I'm gonna then we've got a Helen who wants
Officer - 0:49:38
to say something and then I'll hand to Juliet to sum up. Just to clarify having
discuss the matter with Democratic Services.
We were given delegated authority in the original
Cabinet report, which I think will still stand.
So with your blessing, we'll circulate the
document and do any minor amends.
Obviously, we'll make sure you're aware of them, but
we have delegated authority under the previous
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:49:55
decision if you're still happy with that.
Thank you.
Thank you for telling me that, because the Deputy
Chief Executive just told me that slightly earlier.
But it's important.
That's what I was going to say.
So we don't, in contract to what I said before, we
don't need to give a further delegation, because
we have already given that delegation.
So I'm going to go to Juliet now just to say
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:50:14
any final words on this.
Well, what I would like to say, and just to reiterate
what Mike has said, is that we do need your responses
and to aid responses, because they need to be material.
They need to be valid planning reasons.
And we've got footnotes of all sorts of things
on the document to help you and links.
And so there are footnotes about all sorts of parts of,
you know, a bit of planning speak that gets...
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:50:48
Sorry.
So on the footnotes, just cheque those out as you look through
the document because there are some helpful hints.
I would like to ask Helen, we're going to be publishing
this tomorrow, and you said you're going to send this around
to all cabinet members so we can have a quick look.
But I know that we work in, not hardly in days with this
at the moment, we're having emergency meetings
all over the place.
So actually, what is our deadline for reading this
and coming back to me, I suppose,
and then I can go back to Helen.
You don't need to answer that right this second.
It's not material to the decision,
if you could turn your mic off, Juliette.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:51:32
Sorry.
So yeah, if you want to just think about that and you can tell us after the meeting when you need any final feedback for
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:51:43
So you can give it to you thought that me to agree that at this second
You're all about to run away to another meeting
So what we're asking what I'm asking now the recommendation is that cabinet resolves to approve an addition to the consultation
document for the Cotswold District Council local plan review regulation 18 consultation preferred options and
and commence a seven -week public consultation on this, starting on the 14th of November 2025
and finishing on the 2nd of January 2026.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:52:14
Thank you, and I'll formally second that. Can we go to the vote, please?
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:52:27
Thank you very much for your attendance this evening and wish you all a safe journey home
for those of you who are going home.
Webcast Finished - 0:52:40
Take care.
Bye.

There are currently no votes to display