Planning Appeal - Tuesday 21 April 2026, 10:17am - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning Appeal
Tuesday, 21st April 2026 at 10:17am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Tyler Jardine, Officer
Seat 20
Seat 20
Seat 20
Seat 26
Seat 20
Seat 4
Seat 29
Seat 20
Seat 20
Seat 28
Seat 32
Seat 41
Seat 28
Seat 20
Seat 32
Seat 28
Seat 20
Seat 28
Seat 20
Seat 32
Seat 29
Seat 20
Seat 20
Seat 20
Seat 28
Seat 20
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.

Tyler Jardine, Officer - 0:01:57

Seat 20 - 0:05:51

Thank you.

I can hear myself now.

So it's working.

Okay.

So that's the correct one.

Yes, that's the correct one.

I think, again, we're going to have a short break after this, and we can all just make

sure we're all understanding where we are.

As far as I can tell, this isn't going to affect any of your evidence.

Okay.

So I accept that, and, yeah, we'll have a short break to make sure everyone's happy

with it.

Thank you.

The conditions refer to period three.

Okay.

As I think you just heard from Mr Wakefield, the draught conditions refer to P03, which is

presumptive because we've assumed that that wouldn't cause anybody a problem since it

really is just correcting a graphic error.

What I'll also do is I'll ask for P03 to be placed on the library table so that third

parties can double cheque the veracity of what I've said that it literally is just making

sure there is no overlap to in the safeguarded road area and the development

area and so we'd like to proceed on that basis if possible thank you. Okay yes so

I've agreed to accept it and we'll have the break and we can all make sure that

we're happy with it. Now so I do have a few new documents so these are all ID

documents obviously from the staff as the inquiry opens just to make sure where we

are so I've got your list of appearances Mr Tucker so that would be ID 1 then

I suppose in the order that we were talked about then, ID2 will be the council, the county

council section 106.

ID3 will be the district council 106.

ID4 will be the conditions.

and ID 5 the briefing notes on highways. Is there somebody putting these up on the website?

Is there somebody dealing with that? Thank you very much.

I guess, Councillor.

We will submit the speaking note after this session and it cross -references to the extracts from the submitted evidence that we've already provided.

Okay.

It's going to be easier.

Okay, thank you.

So, I would say it's a review of life privacy, aren't they?

Yes.

I think that is everything.

In terms of ID's so far.

I am assuming the speaking note is no more than that.

It is not for the new evidence.

In which case I certainly have no objection to being submitted.

I think it is very difficult because we didn't ask to do anything other than to submit,

to speak at the inquiry and therefore simply provided it for your reference in case you

wanted to pick anything up from it. I think it is very difficult for you to make that

choice at this moment and I accept why you are saying what you are, but I actually think

that this is going to be submitted because we are participating in this inquiry and therefore

it represents our view.

Yes, I was going to say, no, I think Mr Teckert wanted to make sure that it wasn't introducing

new information that hasn't been submitted already.

No, it's cross -reference to our facts of submitted evidence.

Then that's completely fine.

Then you can put your objection in the microphone.

Thank you.

So in terms of the programme

So we have

We'll have short openings from the opponent of the council in a moment. Then we'll have our break

to discuss things as just as we just have been talking about then I'll have

the statements from Councillor Viviani

And so I've forgotten your name sir and and you

And then I think after that, Councillor Randall, if you wish to speak, you can, or we can go

straight into the roundtable session on that.

I do wish to speak.

Although I'm going to be dwelling on the last point, which is the most important.

Okay, thank you.

And then we'll see where we are for timing and when to take lunch.

But at some point we'll move on to the roundtable session on...

I've lumped them all together even though they are to a certain extent distinct, but flooding, drainage and sewerage.

And then there is a slot later on today for the appellant to provide a sort of more general planning and maybe even a bit of highways evidence.

And really I see that as essentially a general all -purpose roundtable session and opportunity for us all to ask questions as we see necessary in the room.

and then tomorrow's conditions on 106 and then a site visit. Is anybody happy

with that as a roundtable, as a timetable? Yes essentially as you

intimated at the very outset this is really a quasi hearing in the light of

what's happened so that makes sense. In terms of first the opening submissions

Mr. Pontry and I put together separate pages of opening submissions which is

likely to be our case even if we were delivering it at the end and calling it

submissions so if we do need to say anything at the end it will be any

points which have arisen additionally during the last during the next day and

a bit so first thing yes agree with that secondly in terms the presentation this

afternoon ultimately what we had anticipated would be that mr. Jackson

mr. Stacy and mr. Wakefield in turn would perhaps just give a summary of

their their position and then whatever questions arise from yourself or others

can be asked at that stage in an informal setting.

That's how we have anticipated it.

So that works out.

And so if there are points in relation to the 106,

which you would wish to raise either today or tomorrow,

obviously the sooner that we get those points,

then the quicker that Ms. Cartlidge -Taylor

can make the amendments.

It's rare indeed to have the solicitor in the next room

to burst through the door.

but as soon as though that comes forward then we can seek to do that as soon as

possible but in due course we'll be asking for 14 days in terms of

completing the the 2 106 obligations that's probably generous because there

aren't there's only one landowner in relation to this particular parcel of

land but that's really just to deal with sealing days for the council etc so

hopefully quicker than that but that's what we'll be asking for at the end of

inquiry. Okay Ms. Coleridge -Taylor are you available tomorrow as well or just today?

Okay so well I'll try to review it over lunch today I can't really make any

promises. Of course. Then we'll see where we get to. By all means sir thank you. Can we lock

in a site visit date time now? I mean that'd be helpful to everybody. I'm

pretty think of doing it after closing the inquiry it doesn't really make much

difference because I don't talk about evidence on site anyway. I don't

anticipate there being a huge amount to discuss tomorrow morning but I don't

want to rush myself either and we've got to get there. Actually while we're talking

about this is there an agreed route or things to look at?

We've actually sent to the inspection group,

we suggest it.

OK, I haven't got that yet.

OK.

That was just told two weeks ago.

OK, then maybe I've got it and forgot about it.

OK.

Would it be helpful, perhaps, to get a hard copy that

printed out?

We'll add it to the increasing library desk.

So if anybody else wants you to see somewhere else,

then they can tell you after lunch or whatever.

So perhaps we just slightly put it in that,

because it might be based following discussions today I decided to see

other things and that would indicate when I visit but I mean provision is

early afternoon tomorrow and if anything I mean it could be be late of late

morning but we can finalise that during the course of today okay yes at the CMC

you did intimate that that might be unaccompanied and certainly we'd have no

difficulty in opening the gates letting you in allowing to walk around the size

then walking the itinerary. We don't see that you need to be a company on that basis, but happy to accompany if you wish that.

Okay, thank you. I think I'll just reserve judgement to offer the evidence today.

I did look at the site yesterday from public views, so I do have a general understanding of the area and of the site,

my past just in front of the gate and had sort of walked into the village and had a look around.

But obviously I need to do the formal visit as well.

Costs.

So no cost applications have been made.

If any are to be made, then obviously you'll have to do that before closing of the inquiry.

Is there any intention at this stage?

There will be no cost application.

Okay.

Not from our level.

Okay, thank you. So is there anything else anyone wishes to raise before I go on to the,

as I said, I have the two short opening statements from the main parties, then we'll break and then

we'll come back for the interested parties evidence. Anything else before we do that?

Enough for our pass sir, thank you. Okay then Mr Tucker.

Thank you sir.

Thank you. Sir, I'll stick to text and apologies and advice in advance for any typos that we

haven't spotted having read this a number of times. Entirely my fault. So the appellant

seeks the grant of outline planning commission for, as you know, for residential development

up to 195 homes on the site to the south of London Road in Morton.

Importantly associated development includes comprehensive landscaping to minimise visual

effects, an attenuation bench basin to regulate the flow of surface water from the site and

improvements to the local highway network that we say will provide attractive and realistic

opportunities for new residents and existing to walk and cycle to nearby facilities and

such as the Business Park railway station and the town centre.

An application, the application was made and this appeal is pursued against the backdrop of what we say is an acute housing shortage in the area.

Cotswold district faces a pressing need for both market and affordable housing and the appeal scheme will make an important contribution to addressing both components of that need.

at a time when the development plan is still a considerable period of time from being updated

and adopted. And it's seemingly this realisation that's led the council to decide not to oppose

this appeal. That the district council finds itself in the position of acute housing need

is not surprising. Environmentally sensitive landscapes, including the national landscape

and special landscape areas cover the vast majority of this district.

Opportunities to deliver significant housing development located outside the

existing built form of the district settlements which respect those

constraints are limited and that's especially true of Moreton in Marsh

which is one of only two settlements in the district which benefits from a train

station. In the meantime the need for housing is growing. The Constable

district local plan was adopted in 2018 it sets a requirement for housing for

the plan period from 2011 to 31 of 8 ,400 dwellings or 420 dwellings per annum. The

national policy context against which housing need is required to now

be assessed has evolved such that the level of annual housing need according

to the government standard method now stands at just over a thousand homes per

One of the consequence of that more than doubling of the District's identified housing need

is the District now possesses a wholly inadequate five year land supply.

We calculate that level to be a mere 1 .39 years, whereas the Council has advised a different

figure 1 .8 years, but on either basis the shortfall against the minimum requirement

of government is a substantial one.

Separately, as addressed by Mr Stacey, those residents of the District who are in specific

need of affordable housing face substantial challenges. Whilst Mr Stacey

has serious reservations about the council's methodology for its two most

recent assessments, underestimating what he assesses as being real -world need,

nonetheless the level of need identified even in those assessments is still

substantial and will not be met by the identified pipeline of delivery. All

indicators of affordability in this district that have been analysed by Mr

Stacey are moving in the wrong direction. The affordability of housing in the

district is very challenging and getting worse for those in need. There is no

immediate answer to addressing that pressing need for housing to be found in

either the existing or emerging development plans. The adopted plan is

out of date insofar as it contains and is founded upon development requirements

that are now hopelessly out of date in key regards. The local plan was not

designed to deliver over a thousand homes per year and self -evidently can't

do so. Settlement boundaries that were identified a much against a much lower

level of need for 20 dwellings per annum can't accommodate the level of need

that's more than doubled since then. The council is preparing a new plan but

those efforts remain at an early stage. A regulation 19 draught of that plan has not

yet been published and even if progress is smooth adoption of a new plan is at

least 18 months away. Notably in its preferred options document, the

Regulation 18 draught plan, the council is proposing to meet only 79 % of its

housing need yet notably still proposed housing on this site. A draught plan which

is planning to fail is an optimistic base upon which to resolve an existing

and growing housing crisis for the inhabitants of this area. Clearly the

emerging local plan provides no solution as to what is a current and pressing

need for markets and affordable housing.

Its evidence base presumably led it to conclude that this part of Maughton and Marsh provides

an obvious direction where growth should be explored.

So in the light of an acute need for housing, a heavily constrained district and an absence

of answers to be found within the Development Plan system, the appeals scheme presents what

might be thought to be a rare opportunity to deliver significant market and affordable

housing on a sustainably located site whilst generating limited levels of harm.

That's especially true when the land is held and being promoted by one of the

country's most active and successful house builders who are keen to get on

with the delivery of housing on this site and so you have Mr Wakefield's

evidence of my client's position in that regard. It is therefore welcome

that the council has now accepted that outline permission should be granted for

this scheme. Objections advanced by the council and its reason for refusal are

all we see addressed within our evidence in particular one there's no meaningful

evidence before you that facilities and services within the town will be unable

to address increased demand associated with residents from the

proposed homes. Moreton in Marsh is identified as a principal settlement

within this district in both adopted and emerging plans. The emerging plan directs

considerable growth to this town including at the appeal site as set out

Mr Wakefield's proof of evidence, Morton in Marsh is an obvious candidate for additional

much needed housing delivery.

Two, there will be no excessive reliance by residents of the new developments on the private

car.

The appellant has devoted significant evidence you will have seen, sir, to ensuring that

the proposals will deliver enhanced facilities for pedestrians and cyclists in order to ensure

that residents will enjoy a real choice of modes of travel other than the private car.

So I don't normally read footnotes but you'll see that there is a bit of a

nuance to private cars because those which are electric vehicles or hybrids

are considered to be sustainable travel and we make provision for those to

assist in terms of the transformation of the national fleet. So we say the

residents will enjoy a real choice of modes than the private car. If residents

want to access shops and services in the town or go to destinations further a

by relying on public transport they can do so. Those enhanced facilities will

have the added benefit of being available to all, for example employees

at the employment site next door. Not only will the scheme be appropriately

accessible for the proposed use, it will generate no unacceptable harmful impact

on either traffic congestion or air quality. A vision led approach to these

proposals has been at the heart of the approach taken to accessibility

reflecting national policy. Little wonder then that there is a comprehensive

statement of common ground with the local highway authority with no issues

in dispute between those parties. The appeal site number three is one of the

few undeveloped areas immediately identified adjacent to the the town that

is not part of either the national landscape or the SLA and whilst

currently undeveloped it's plainly influenced by existing development. Those

factors together with the ability to achieve a layout that will benefit from

existing and proposed landscaping should result in a scheme that will generate

only limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. Biodiversity

interests have been addressed the satisfaction of the council and

statutory consultees there is no objection on the grounds of drainage or

flooding from any statutory consultee and planning obligations are advanced

that meets the demands of both district and county councils. So against that

background we summarise the appellant's position in relation to three main issues very briefly

as follows. One, whether the appeal cites an appropriate location for development of

this type. We say it's located outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary for Moreton

in Marsh in one of the few locations unconstrained by the landscape designation. That settlement

boundary was set in the adopted local plan by reference to development requirements now

well out of date and the council is faced with an immediate and pressing need for additional

and affordable housing that simply cannot wait for the adoption of the next plan.

Good accessibility to services and facilities providing within this

principal town in particular by non -car modes is assured by the delivery of

enhanced provision for pedestrians and cyclists. First main issue is met

therefore. Second the effects of the proposed developments on the character

appearance of the area including landscape character. We say the site's

relationship with existing built developments in particular to the west

To the north and to the east and existing infrastructure in particular London Road and the wastewater treatment works for the south

West together with existing landscape features means that this is a site which is more than capable of accommodating the appeal scheme

Whilst layouts and landscape are details reserved for later approval

It's clear that the proposed development of up to one nine five houses can be comfortably cited with generous landscape areas

incorporating both existing and proposed planting

impacts on landscape character and visual amenity are kept well within the bounds of acceptability.

3. The effects of the proposed development on sewerage infrastructure.

Flood risk and drainage associated with the scheme have been the subject of very careful technical consideration by my clients.

The position set out in summary with a Mr Green's proof of evidence which we say demonstrates the following.

1. The sites located within flood zone 1, i .e. an area at the lowest risk of flooding.

2. There will be no risk to the development caused by surface water at the site.

3. The flow of surface water from the site is towards a water course at its eastern boundary,

a tributary of the even load. It is proposed that surface water from the site continues

to discharge in that water course. But, and this is the big but, the rate of discharge

can and will be controlled using entirely conventional means, i .e. attenuated by the

use of a basin, a tried and tested approach which will in turn generate a betterment for

those who reside downstream in larger storm events.

And I draw attention to the footnote but don't read it out.

Four, flood drainage can be successfully provided to the scheme.

Forgive me, foul drainage, I don't know why I read that as flood drainage can be successfully

provided to the scheme.

Thames Water, the statutory sewerage undertaken for the area, is under a legal duty to provide

a sewerage connexion to the scheme and is required to maintain an effective sewerage

system including treatment works.

Insofar as the existing treatment works require improvement as a result of this scheme, those

improvements will be carried out in accordance with a known phasing programme that allows

for the uninterrupted delivery of the proposed homes.

None of the relevant statutory consultees, the EA, the local LEED flood authority and

Thames Water object to the grant of consent for this scheme.

And whilst third party objections focused on flood risk and drainage concerns, no technical

evidence has been advanced in support of those objections which would justify or come close

to justifying rejection of the informed position of all of those statutory consultees and I

add the position of the appellants.

Planning balance in the light of the wholly inadequate housing land supply within this

district and the fact that key components of the local plan are out of date, namely

its housing requirements and settlement boundaries, there can be no doubt that the tilted balance

is firmly engaged. Similarly, there is no doubt as the outcome of weighing that balance.

The benefits of this scheme weigh heavily, in particular its contributions to addressing

the acute needs for market and affordable housing in the area in favour of the development.

Those benefits will be delivered at a sustainable location at limited environmental costs. So

in this case, benefits significantly, demonstrably and decisively outweigh harm and the tilted

balance firmly falls in favour of allowing the appeal. Apologies for the

alliteration at the end sir. Okay. Easy for me to say. Thank you. Thank you Mr Tucker.

Mr Leafhead. Thank you sir. Thank you. So yours is ID 7 and this is ID 8.

Thank you, sir.

These brief opening submissions set out the position of the Council following its decision

not to continue to contest the appeal.

As set out in the joint notification with the appellant dated 15th April 2026,

the Council took this decision following the material change in the policy evidence context

since the Council's decision, a review of the evidence submitted for this appeal,

and after receiving professional advice.

The Council kept its case under active review.

Its reassessment was not triggered by any single event,

but by the cumulative effect of the developing planmaking position,

the ongoing consideration of consultation responses and evidence,

as well as the wider national policy context.

The emerging local plan process has progressed.

Following the Regulation 18 consultation,

the consideration of representations, further review of the evidence base,

and assessment of additional promoted sites,

the appeal site has not been discounted and remains under active consideration

in the emerging local plan process.

That is a different position from that of the date of refusal, and one that has become clear only through the subsequent consideration of Regulation 18 responses and related evidence, as well as the evidence in this appeal.

This is not to say that the site would be allocated, but the position has moved from not under consideration to not discounted from consideration.

That cumulative review progressively clarified the position and the Council was assisted by independent planning advice

which informed the Council's reappraisal of its position.

The Council entered into discussions with the appellant and it decided not to continue to defend the appeal.

Once that decision had been reached the Council acted to notify the parties and you sir so as to avoid further unnecessary

expenditure of time and public resources.

The word further shouldn't be in that sentence to avoid unnecessary expenditure of time and

public resources.

The council will therefore not be offering any evidence in the inquiry, but its officers

will be available to assist you, sir, in any way they can.

Thank you, Ms. Seifert.

In paragraph five, where's the best place in the court documents for me to see the change

of the emerging local plan?

Mr. Perks' best place.

So much is still confidential, but.

Excuse me.

Yes.

The council in November last year issued

a preferred options consultation paper

as part of the emerging local plan process,

which looked at various options for development growth

and where it was going to accommodate the 18 ,600 houses.

That finished in January,

but we received several thousand responses

to that consultation and that's been part of the local plan assessment going forward

including, and the preferred option at that time was to look at development in principal

non -principal settlements, strategic growth of some settlements which would be development

over 500 houses and possibly a new town. That's kind of going forward, that's what the forward

plans, part of planning policy section is focusing their time now on developing. The

intention is to get the draught local plan to Regulation 19 in August now. So things are

advancing quite quickly in terms of developing that strategy. But as part of that strategy,

Moreton as Council has indicated, Moreton is now potentially one of those growth areas

which could accommodate strategic growth. So we now have a clear indication that the

Council is seriously considering larger scale residential growth in Moreton, which we didn't

have at the time of the appeal determination of the application. So if that helps. It's

a constantly evolving process and the council's public position won't be announced until August,

but hopefully that helps to explain the evolving process in that regard.

So there's no publicly available documentation yet available?

The intention would be that everything publicly would be released in August when we undertake

the Regulation 19 process.

Okay, thank you.

In that case, thank you to everybody.

So, as promised, shall we now have our mid -morning break

to allow us all to review the extra evidence and, of course,

the process to talk to each other?

Should we have half an hour to make sure there's time

to do that properly?

So, it's 10 .53.

Should we come back at 11 .25?

Is that okay with everybody?

Yes sir, thank you.

OK, in that case the inquiry is adjourned. Thank you.

Seat 20 - 0:37:14

I have no objection in principle to that, but I will monitor it.

If I think it's sort of not helpful to me, then I'll just interject and say.

Yes, it's in my

government tools and said that

So can you put your mic, is the microphone on?

Yes, I did have a word with

King's Council and just said to him

Seat 20 - 0:37:30

that I was sure that you would

probably weed out anything

that you would not need to

consider. So

I'm hopeful that I will just

do what I need to do

and you'll knock out.

And

just so I understand

Are you expecting us to make a statement at this stage or will you be expecting questions?

I'll make the statement and I'm very happy to speak to people probably after I've made

the statement either outside or you know letting the other people go and we can certainly do that.

Okay well we'll just see how your speech progresses then because it might be starts to

overlap a bit into the roundtable session but I'm happy within reason just to sort of go with

I am completely happy to be flexible.

It is not my practise normally to ask the third parties if there are points which arise,

I will ask Mr Wakefield to deal with them.

If there is a written text, it will be handy to have that circulated at the outset rather than at the end of the text.

Can you make a few notes?

Certainly, Mark.

So one back.

Sorry, can we give you one back?

Sorry, let's give you one back.

This is also to see if there are those which are being addressed.

That's the speaking mode and that's the extra and the footnote to the speaking mode on the disability.

Thank you very much.

And will you be submitting this electronically as well, Councillor?

Yes, happy to do that.

Is that what has already been submitted?

Yes.

OK, Councillor.

OK, thank you.

I am Viviani, Moreton in Marchtown Council.

Following the application of the Cotswold District Council to no longer contest this appeal and withdraw its case from the inquiry,

the M Georgetown Council feels that given the withdrawal of the local planning authority,

it must continue to make the case in respect of the impact of cumulative developments.

In submitting its application for the inquiry, Law Homes clearly stated,

However, it is nonetheless expected that a significant number of complex issues, including

the cumulative impact, will remain unresolved and will need to be determined.

The live issues of this case give rise for complex legal planning policy considerations

for the decision -maker.

The LPA's withdrawal from the inquiry was a surprise.

The inquiry might have examined some specific technical points and, rightly or wrongly,

we believe its aim would have been and still can be to arrive at a pragmatic view of this application

with potential impact for other locations in the Cotswold District and many LPAs in the same situation as CDC

I .e. those without a five -year housing land supply in the midst of rewriting their local plans and

faced with cumulative issues stemming from development.

The town council welcomes this opportunity to highlight some of these issues and the

impact of development in the context of the town, its residents and its economy.

The town council is not suggesting that Bloor Homes, the appellant, can't deliver quality

developments and often arguments around planning are misrepresented as nimbyism.

The issue for this inquiry is about ad hoc, incremental unplanned development and the

impact of infrastructure issues related particularly to flood, ageing and overburdened water infrastructure,

highways congestion, electricity supply works, landscaping and planning.

In evidence submitted to this inquiry extracted from the Mortner Marsh flood action group,

response to the local planning authorities local plan consultation, LIDAR imagery illustrates

a number of natural water pathways and channels flowing into the river evenload around Borton

and the supplied geological information relating to the area is clear in the respect of the

potential risk of increased surface water due to the prevalence of silt and clay layers

tending to low permeability.

The existence of the Morton Flood Action Group evidence in itself is testimony to the fact

that a problem exists in this location.

Importantly, the work of the group with support from organisations such as the lead local

flood authority, Wild Oxfordshire, Thames Water, the Environment Agency, landowners

and others are actively seeking ways to mitigate some of the effects stemming from climate

change.

A few funded natural flood management schemes have been put into place and others are underway,

some funded with support from DEFRA.

We accept that low permeability does not mean no permeability.

However, if we develop on floodplains and reduce the amount of ground that can absorb

water, logic suggests that further problems are inevitable and whilst attenuation may

mitigate an immediate localised issue, it may not prevent the movement of water to other

locations outside the town. In accordance with the MPPF February 25 version paragraph

172, all plans should apply a sequential risk -based approach to the location of development, taking

into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate

change so as to avoid possible flood risk to people and property.

If we could be confident that the LPA had commissioned a water cycle study that included

a detailed impact assessment of the effect of strategic growth in Morton on downstream

settlements, we might be assured.

Developments in the wrong place will limit the effects of natural flood management measures,

and it would seem that the work of the Morton in Marsh Flood Action Group is set to continue

ad infinitum.

Sewage in Moreton in Marsh is treated by being pumped to the sewage treatment works by the

Primrose Court Pumping Station. If there is a need during storm events, the Primrose Court

Pumping Station has some tank holding capacity and is also licenced by the Environment Agency

to discharge onto a nearby land treatment area. There are two permitted combined sewer

overflows and on occasions where the incoming flow has exceeded the network capacity for

sustained periods, the LTA is utilised and spills into the river have occurred on both

wet and dry days. As you may have seen from the photograph in the supporting evidence,

the LTA is surrounded by houses and located on the banks of the river Evelode in the bottom

left picture. Following serious floods in Moreton during 2007, Sir Geoffrey Clifden -Brown

MP has convened a series of meetings related to flood and water issues. At the MP -led Cotswolds,

Swope Flood Forum, 24 November, I raised the issue of the land treatment area and the licence

for Primrose Court. The licence for Primrose Court is in compliance with 1984 standards

and those of course are vastly different from today, some 40 years later. The response from

Thames Water stated that 108 schemes had been deferred of which Morton was one. It has been

move back to between 2025 and 2030. I subsequently referred to the example of the 2019 planning

application from Spitfire Development for 250 homes. This was decided in December 2021.

Dunstall Farms Spitfire Development example epitomises the difficulties posed for the

planning system and the cumulative impact of development on an already overloaded sewage

system. For this particular planning application, the report commissioned from Stantec at 7 .3 .1

included comment from Thames Water that concluded their sewage network had capacity to accommodate

flows from the first 50 residential units with insufficient capacity to meet the needs

of full development without taking off -site upgrade works. And noting the need from Thames

water to model the reinforcement works, of that size being about 20 months.

The LPA approved the planning application and they imposed a condition 27, and that

was no occupation beyond the first 50 dwellings until the confirmations provided that either

all foul water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the

development have been completed or a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed.

On 15 October 24 the LPA approved the Phasing Plan for the occupation of 50 dwellings per half year up to 2029, and that met Planning Condition 27.

At the MPs meeting on Friday 5 December in respect of the EA review of the land treatment permit due early in 2025, it said that it would issue variations to permits to Thames Water,

Both parties knowing they have not done the investments where they are therefore incapable of meeting those improved conditions.

So from 2021 approved planning application in 2024, we have a dwelling occupation phasing plan, an overburdened sewage pumping station discharging onto a land treatment area due to have its permits updated in early 2025.

Then the EA assessment comes during 2025 to say the updated permit has not been issued.

Now the event duration monitors still show that site is spilling into the land treatment

area and into the river, with planned works to increase the sewage capacity in the treatment

works by 2030.

An EIR reply dated 12 February 26 states, at this stage no formal decision has been

regarding the full decommissioning of the Primrose Court discharge facility.

Current EDM data for Primrose Court location says,

we expect this location to meet all government targets for storm overflows by 2045 to 2050.

Over a long period from the date of the planning application to the possibility,

and only a possibility, not a certainty, of the treatment works being improved by 2030,

there is still only a possibility relating to the storm overflow issue being resolved

between 2045 and 2050. I am not sure if the developers have ever understood or needed

to understand this issue in the round. The suggestion made in the statement of common

ground agreed by the LPA for the inquiry states it's agreed that no objection has been raised

from Thames water subject to conditions regarding the surface and foul water networks. This

evidence highlights the issue that strong planning conditions need to be in place to

prevent occupation prior to the actual delivery of relevant infrastructure. Both the LPA and

the developer seriously need to look beyond the words, no objection has been raised, particularly

in respect of infrastructure known to be an issue. And it's not reasonable to continue

to ignore the evidence. Currently, the overburden on the sewage network continues and very worryingly

recent applications, including this one for 195 dwellings, another for 110 dwellings and

one for a hotel of 88 rooms plus bar, restaurant and public areas, all unplanned outside the

development boundary, have been received for consideration.

More than residents and businesses have to hope that the pressure on the main sewer pumping

station and pipe to the treatment works did not fail and that planned upgrades to the

treatment works are not accepted as paper exercise but actually happen.

Given the uncertainty of infrastructure delivery, a reliance on conditions around phased occupation

cannot continue. To this date, this approach has not delivered a sustainable settlement

from an environmental perspective, which suggests a more robust approach is required in setting

planning conditions. Moving on from water issues to highways, traffic congestion in

Morton is well documented. The A429 Fosse Way runs through the High Street and the A44

linking Oxford to Evesham intersects the A429 at the centre of Morton in too many roundabouts.

As traffic through the town continues to increase, Morton is often gridlocked. Queuing for long

periods is a regular occurrence and has a detrimental impact on residents, businesses

and visitors. Whilst individual housing developments such as this one can include some specific

traffic mitigation measures, the additional increase in cars cannot do other than add

to the congestion in the town. The neighbourhood plan development plan is currently out for

regulation 16 draught circulation and it also refers to the issue of traffic congestion

as a challenge. Town Council, together with its traffic consultants, is currently engaged

with Gloucestershire County Council to review parking with a view to improving traffic flow,

safety and movement in the centre of the town. This work commenced to address pressures placed

on the town stemming from development between 2012 and 2019. The CDC Local Plan Update 2024

Policy S18 paragraph 7 .21 .12 describes the town centre congestion in Moreton in Marsh

suggesting a route is protected in the local plan for a new road connecting the London Road A44

with the A429 to the north and south of Moreton via the east of the town. The LPA agreed statement

of common ground repeating the point made in the local plan consultation avoids the cumulative

issue of congestion by the LPA suggesting it already has a plan to address this issue,

but not stating when. Today, no one has seen the plan and the supporting information, so

why is this deemed to be a credible solution at this point in time? How viable is the delivery

of a costly highway infrastructure option when is the earliest point at which it can

be delivered?

The MPPF February 25 paragraph 116 says development should only be prevented or refused on highway

grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or residual cumulative

impacts on the road network following mitigation would be severe, taking into account all reasonable

future scenarios.

The MPPF2026, that has recently been consulted, TR6 paragraph 3 is very similar.

All development proposals should be capable of proceeding without having severe adverse

impacts on the transport network in terms of capacity and congestion, including cumulative

impacts or an unacceptable impact on highway safety, taking into account any mitigation

measures proposed as well as any wider network improvements.

Whatever version of the MPPF you consider, both make provision for the assessment of

cumulative impacts of the road and network congestion.

They may not be regarded as serious or severe on paper, but the LPA and the developer cannot

deny they exist, nor can the experience of residents and visitors to Moreton be ignored.

The LPA and developer need to look beyond the potential solution and consider the real

situation in terms of determining planning conditions.

Reasonable future scenarios are just that, future scenarios, but we need to judge what

is reasonable during the current state of local plan development.

On this basis, what would a reasonable planning condition look like?

Perhaps this point could be discussed during tomorrow's roundtable session on planning

conditions.

In addition to the existing traffic congestion, access to and through Morton underwent very

serious difficulties during 2024 and early 2025 in order to facilitate the

Spitfire 250 dwelling. National Grid took undertook significant work to increase

the capacity of Moreton Main, a 66 kV electricity substation described by the

LPA in its 2025 local plan consultation as some reinforcement through Moreton

High Street. Stantec report in support of the Dunstall Farm Planning

application at point 3 .31 suggested the need to connect to the primary

substation approximately 1 .5 kilometres to the north of the site off Moreton

High Street. This was a significant requirement to support the

development of the site and as the submitted evidence shows it involved the

excavation of the entire length of a very busy high street by National Grid.

Communications relating to the work commenced in June 24 the county

Council raised his concerns with Gloucestershire County Council and in their response the County

Council stated, national grid are very aware of the scale of this work and the potential

disruption. The scale of works amounted to severe delays over a period of many months

in all directions in and out of Moreton. It's impossible to dismiss and underestimate the

cumulative impacts of development in this instance on residents, visitors and the local

economy. The LPA has indicated significant electricity requirement to facilitate development

in its preferred options consultation, assessment of broad strategic development locations required

in its local plan. Whilst we try to mitigate the immediate impacts of events surrounding

development in the course of construction, given the indicative electricity requirement

to satisfy the delivery of housing, potentially in excess of 4 ,000 homes, the cumulative impact

of Development for Morton suggests the need for a specific, detailed spatial planning,

and on that basis a discussion with National Grid to enable a suitable lead time, taking

into account the delivery of significant infrastructure is required.

Planning conditions related to the provision of essential utilities may need to state that

for some specified services, for example drinking water, electricity, broadband, must be in

place prior to first occupation. Town Council is not regarded as a statutory

council team. However, we are members of a resident population of about 5 ,000 people.

We live in Moreton. The agreed statement of Common Ground states

the site is not located in the special landscape area and the development will not have an

adverse impact on the Cotswold National Landscape. But the Town Council cannot ignore the fact

that parts of its town for which we have responsibility do sit in the SLA and the AOMB Cotswold National

Landscape and the quality of life and the character and setting of the whole town is

very important to residents and visitors as a market town situated in the landscape of

the Cotswolds.

MPPF February 25, paragraph 129D refers to the desirability of maintaining an area's

prevailing character and setting.

In the town council's response to the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation April 24,

Green Infrastructure Policy CC 7 .3, we responded as follows.

Biodiversity net gains spatial operating strategy combined or overlaid with a spatial development

strategy within the district would at least enable residents to understand how their environment

is being planned and managed in support of nature recovery, wellbeing and climate emergency.

Each pocket of unplanned incremental development has the potential to cumulatively erode the

area's prevailing character and setting. Without being identified in a spatial strategy as

part of a spatial development plan in accordance with MPPF 26 Policy S2 providing a spatial

strategy, Morton's residents and its visitor economy will suffer.

The town council has engaged with the LPA to raise specific concerns relating to planning

for Morton. The town council's covering letter response to the local plan regulation 18 consultation

dated April 3rd, 2024, commented that it hadn't seen a strategic housing economic land availability

assessment since 2022 and also proposed that a fully resourced developed master plan be

specifically determined for Mortimer Marsh prior to 26.

Following Regulation 18 consultation in early 2024, the Town Council raised concerns about

planning and resorted to making a presentation to the forward planner at CDC in November

24, urging them to explore the issue of what the LPA could do for Morton in Marsh in terms

of spatial planning, and included the following key points.

If CDC wants key delivery to be around Morton, it should take steps now to develop a spatial

strategy for delivery over the next 20 to 30 -year period.

The current way of delivering district -wide studies does not reflect a serious intent

to plan effectively for Moreton in Marsh. Normally it satisfied regulated future plan

inspection. Presentation was subsequently copied to the Planning Advisory Team peer

service challenge. In its Regulation 18 consultation in December 25, the LPA in its growth of relevant

Settlements Table beyond 2043, estimated a figure for Morton of 4 ,390. If this development

figure is deemed viable, Morton in Marsh is definitely worth the development of a suitable

master plan, on par with other examples such as the Kingshill Master Plan supplementary

planning document for 4 ,000 dwellings in Warwickshire District Council area due to be delivered

between now and 2050. If the LPA had considered adopting a master plan approach to planning

for Moreton, as requested by the Council on a number of occasions, and communicated this

point, it might have enabled Bloor Homes and other developers to see how their proposals

could fit into a phased plan, including a realistic time frame for infrastructure delivery,

and it might have managed their expectations. Given the LPA desire for Moreton to be regarded

as a principal settlement suitable for strategic scale growth and noting the LPA's separate

feasibility study of development options to expand Moreton in Marsh, everyone needs to

understand how biodiversity net gain can contribute to the character and setting of the Cotswold

landscape, particularly in areas not specifically designated for protection but still part of

the town. The emerging local plan is scheduled to be consulted at Regulation 19 later this

As yet, there is no indication of the LPA's consideration to provide a full, specific,

spatially developed master plan for Moreton, which, given the LPA's stated strategic ambition

for the development of Moreton, is of great concern.

We note the Environment Agency in providing its response to this inquiry has also included

advice to the LPA in respect of its emerging local plan relating to the cumulative impact

of development.

A point about the emerging local plan that includes Mortimer Marsh is that if it is accepted

at Regulation 19 and beyond, it will subsequently be merged under local government reform to

be part of a wider aerial spatial development strategy.

The Town Council noted the clarification question related to the weighting of the revised MPPF

in this inquiry, and given the point raised in respect of the LPA and its planned preparation

stage, we think it would be right to accept the cumulative issues associated with developments

in Mortland Marsh should be considered to accord with the direction that national planning

policy is taking.

There is little chance of addressing incremental developments outside of the development boundary

or mitigating the cumulative effects of development without situating this development and others

with a spatially designed and informed master plan for Mortland Marsh.

In the interim period of an emerging local plan, the requirement for the LPA is to acknowledge

the cumulative impacts of development and impose suitable conditions.

In conclusion, the Maunton -Marsh Town Council of unpaid volunteers is not run on political

lines.

As councillors, we respond to national and local governments on matters of planning policy,

and it doesn't mean we always agree, and definitely not on the revised standard method of housing

calculation figures for the Cotswolds.

But the bottom line is that we have to try to understand the application of government

policy wherever it applies, and particularly as it changes.

That is our responsibility.

The town council's aim is to support planning for a sustainable settlement.

It is disappointing that it has been left to the town council to make the case of this

inquiry highlighting the cumulative impact of development and advocating the need for

planning conditions to be robust, particularly in a time of challenge in the absence of a

five -year housing land supply and a developing local plan.

Town Council is mindful of point 27 raised in the case management conference recorded

in this summary in respect of the framework.

It nevertheless is a material planning consideration, albeit of limited weight.

It would be a shame if the Secretary of State has to be engaged again to determine a developer's

case related to Morton in Marsh or to intervene in the local plan making process.

The LPA in announcing its intention to withdraw from the inquiry in its news item, acknowledged

proposals and changes to government's national planning policy, accepting and attributing

the policy changes to its decision to withdraw from this case.

If the LPA believe they could not defend the application owing to changes in government

policy or if the emerging local plan is not deemed to be at a late stage of development,

it would now be in everyone's interest for the LPA to specifically engage with the Town

Council as a tier of local government set to remain following local government reform

to discuss settlement -related planning issues.

From the Town Council perspective, two important requirements have emerged from the inquiry.

The first is for the LPA to accept the need to develop more robust planning conditions

Secondly, for the LPA to announce it will invest resource to develop a detailed, spatially

developed master plan for Moreton -in -Marsh to meet government planning policy requirements

and importantly to ensure that Moreton -in -Marsh as a place in its setting in the Cotswolds

national landscape is preserved.

A view which the Secretary of State via this inquiry may wish to accord.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Tucker, do you have any questions or comments?

I do have one to add but I'll turn to you first.

My question is, we might kick off in relation to Mr. Green's presentation on Mr. Wakefield's.

Seat 26 - 1:05:57

Obviously the position with regard to condition 27 of the Spitfire Homes Permission, the Donstall Farm one,

has been subject to a non -material amendment,

which is dated, if you forgive me,

2020, yeah, it's 2023, 27 September 2023,

which agreed a phasing plan for that scheme.

So the 50 home capacity that's referenced

is now being overtaken by the NMA.

That is a point that we would perhaps explain in due course.

That is actually found within some of the documentation that the Councillors provided,

but I didn't want you to simply think that that was not superseded.

So where exactly is that in the documentation?

I think I have highlighted that probably in a footnote, and it certainly is in the evidence pack.

I think the issue that we were trying to raise there is that you approve a planning condition

and then during the course it gets amended.

But the reality is that the pressure

on that sewage pumping pipe,

which may not be relevant necessarily directly

for this particular application, but for that,

it still continues to put pressure on the pipe

and because of the infrastructure delivery issues,

we can't see an end to it.

So you start your planning application, which in that case,

started in 2019, and we're talking

about potentially 2030.

But can we guarantee that?

I think we possibly can, but I never thought

we'd be at this stage.

It was due to be delivered by 2025, the upgrade to be either

the treatment works or the pumping stations.

So this is the precarious position that we're in,

in respect of sewage and capacity and things like that.

So the answer to your question, sir, is supporting evidence one,

internal page 9 onwards gives you a list of emails which explains that.

Yes.

That's fine, thank you.

We want to invite someone to give out these issues.

Anything else you wanted to say?

Not for our part, sir.

Thank you.

Just to help the Councillor, so there's obviously the treatment works adjacent to the site.

Yes the treatment works is, yes.

I think in your visit, I think it would be worth you seeing the primrose court pumping

station, whoever is guiding you on that visit.

For this application, I think, and the appellant will say, their desire is to go straight to

the treatment works avoiding the pumping station, I think that is correct.

So the pumping station issues are not so much, I think, for this application,

but the reality is that given the circumstances, what we are saying is

that actually we can't continue to have phasing occupation planning conditions

if infrastructure delivery is not going to be there.

Seat 20 - 1:12:41

Yes, Mr Lewis.

The 20 months you're referring to is the network.

It's nothing to do with Soothe DreamWorks.

So Soothe DreamWorks itself and Watercomarch

will not be upgraded until the early 2029 or 30th.

The environment has not even received an application

in terms of water for dry weather and fertiliser

paper upgrade at this point.

So to your point, you are incorrect about that.

So what is needed to be upgraded to accommodate

this proposal, Mr. Green?

So the connexion to the treatment work is required to accommodate this kind of treatment.

And the Swiss treatment works itself is very much driving up the flow of the

permeability conditions at the moment. And that's actually declared much

environment -based, which is very, very, so you are fundamentally

flawed in that information. We can discuss that later, I think, but that's just a different one.

But quickly, that's that phasing plan, the template to recommend it.

There is no phasing. There is no phasing for the treatment to accommodate

a driver, the flow -frame is failing now.

Anything else added to it will simply make it fail more.

As it's fundamental, these are clear technical issues

I'm happy to discuss to be going around the table.

OK.

We'll perhaps come back to that when we come to you.

Actually, I think the data will come in a dangerous way.

But I'll put it clear.

And I have them accurately calibrated

for all of the calculations that use spreadsheets

these are matters of fact, not to be.

Would that be new evidence?

No, it's referred to in my evidence.

All I have is I've got the caps back in that evidence.

So the evidence is referred to in my submission to you,

which I made.

But if the calculations are not in the evidence,

then there would not have been the opportunity for Mr Green to...

It's not even referred to by the environment agency

in that evidence and to this committee.

But I'd be concerned if Mr Green hasn't had a chance

to actually look at the background data.

I've got it here if you wanted to look at it.

Well, yes, but in...

I think this is John.

That's the purpose of this inquiry,

to investigate examples of those things of detail.

I raised those things of detail quite clearly.

If I have to put every spreadsheet in

for every absolute figure,

then if I find that strange,

particularly if the environment agencies

highlighted that in its tradition.

Right, really.

between the parties.

status are required to provide the information that they wish to have cited on the 21 days

after the start date and when they are notified. It is wholly exceptional for even a Rule 6

party to turn up to the inquiry with technical information and expect it to be received.

This is not a forum where rabbits are pulled out of hats. This is a forum for you to scrutinise

information that should be before all relevant experts on way in advance of today. It is

not enough to say it's simply a matter of information you've already got. With respect,

if it's suggested that my membership now deal with an Excel spreadsheet with data on the

hoop, that is wholly prejudicial to our case and I would strongly object to it being brought

forward.

I applied to be a Rule 6 party and I was told by the planning spectra that it was probably

better to come as an interested party. The Environment Agency have clearly said that

in their dry weather flow calculations, if you read their submission they highlight the

failure of a works at a Q80 figure to meet its dry weather flow calculations. That's

in there, that's in their evidence. I refer to it as well. There's nothing new in that,

That's absolutely absolutely explicit

If if the palates expert is not bothered to look at that statement and to back it up or to refute it

That's not my problem. That is their problem

All I have is the data here that I produced which they're very welcome to but is available publicly for the appellant

We've got unused. I don't see a problem

It is not like I produced a rabbit out of a hat. I have clearly stated, as has the Environment

Agency, where the problem lies.

Mr Green, what is your current knowledge of this?

In the years response to the initial planning inquiry, which was not an objection, it did

raise issues of cryo -overflow.

I'm aware of that.

But we're also aware that they did not object on that basis.

And that Thames Water have also not objected on that basis.

And they said, how are they scheduled?

But any necessary upgrades are not meant to be developed.

Just one more fact, Thames Water is not,

as the honourable gentleman there said, a statutory consultee.

It's not a statutory consultee in law.

never has been, never will be. So that's factually incorrect and that was in your opening statement.

Mr Tucker, any comment on that?

They are not a statutory consultee, they regularly use that as an excuse for not being a statutory

consultee and they've used it in cases in Buckingham quite recently. So the water companies

is regularly referred to themselves as non -statutory consortees. They have the same planning status,

as far as I'm aware, as Marks and Sparks, Biffa, any of those other big commercial companies,

and more with Thames Water. Not only are they a non -statutory consortee, they also have

a massive financial incentive in this business. They have been found to lie, they have been

prosecuted 183 times and as such they are unreliable witnesses and if you look at people

like Alex Shutuck who has given KC's advice it is quite open for this inquiry to entirely

reject their evidence as inaccurate or indeed at times flaky. The Environment Agency do

not object because they have been told not to by DEFRA and the Department of Housing.

colleagues in the Environment Agency who I talked to are furious about that

position but that's the position they'd be put into which is why their statement

should be considered as being equivalent to an objection because they are not

allowed to do so and I know that's I know that's probably me stepping beyond

the mark but that is a fact of the matter. Well there's lots of allegations

there and the relevant organisations aren't here for me to ask questions.

That's why I'm afraid.

So there's very limited weight I could apply to that without

obviously being able to sort of understand

the wider implications.

I'm not going to accept the new evidence because I think

it would be prejudicial to the appellant.

But I'm happy for you to talk about the general principles

and to draw upon what you've already said.

Yes, that's okay, Mr Tucker.

Yes, please sir.

So, we've come back to some of these points, Mr Lewis, when it's your turn to speak, if that's okay?

Yeah, definitely, when that round table comes, if that's appropriate sir.

Thank you.

I mean, it feels like it's sort of developing into the round table already starting, and I'm happy with that to be honest.

It was always going to be hard to get this into very defined boxes.

There was so much of it overlapping.

The important thing for me is that we talk about it today.

Okay, thank you.

So just a moment, just so that I know the questions I have for you, sorry.

I think, yes, some of the stuff I'm going to come back to in the conditions session.

So, was it to be Councillor Randall next?

Thank you, Mr Simpson.

Sorry.

Councillor Simpson.

Okay.

So just whilst you're doing that,

paragraph 13 of 15 -0 -13 of the PPG

gives you a list of statutory containers.

The statutory amounts of things

including water and sewage and containers

by reference of schedule 4ZF

of the development and management

of procedural and right of parking vehicles.

So it's in the PPGs in Chapter 15,

paragraph 13, reference to schedule 4Z of the EMDR.

Okay, I mean the PPG is just a factual thing

for me to look at, so yes, I'm happy for you

to provide that.

It feels to me like it's largely semantics anyway,

for the purpose of today.

Yes, Councillor.

Thank you.

Firstly, can I apologise for being higher than you?

Probably heavier than you, but not more important.

I had a chat with Mr Green or Robin, as we are now friends,

and made it clear that the presentation I'm going to give

is in the public domain.

In fact, I sat at that table there two years ago

giving exactly this presentation to CDC.

Well, in fact, no, it wasn't this presentation.

It was two hours long.

But I didn't think you'd actually be able to sit through two hours.

So this is truncated down to about 10 minutes.

It is in relation to the wider catch route.

Now we're specifically talking about Bloor Homes,

a field to the east of Mortmere Marsh.

But the Bledington flood group has been in existence

for seven years now.

And I just wondered if I could have a show of hands,

how many people here have waded through 10 to 12 inches

of flood water and cleared up the mud and detritus that appears after that.

So this is a little interlude.

It's a fairly emotive presentation.

I accept it is actually tangential to actual specifics of the inquiry in terms of Blue

Islands, but is it important to illustrate, and as Irene actually introduced in the first

part of her talk. The actual importance of the aspects of flooding and drainage to the

wider catchment. Now I haven't done a written statement. This is basically in support of

the statement I actually did submit which Robin has written a rebuttal to. So in terms

of Bledington and again it was referred to in the BBW rebuttal. There's Moreton

Marsh and we're six miles away from you guys so what the hell has that

Bledington flood got to do with this? We fled regularly. Right back to 1896 we

can conical our flooding. These are the important dates to highlight. The red

lozenges are the flooding that I think everybody knows about in 2007, 2020 and

2024. Flooding itself was the worst hit community per capita in the

county and because of that we activated a flood response plan. 24 properties were

flooded and we had to evacuate old ladies in canoes, believe it or not. I

flooding in Spain. Well, I've got one or two emotive slides to show you how important this

is. We've connected with a number of agencies across the board. The LLFA has already been

quoted and we work very, very closely with the LLFA. It's interesting, it's important

to note that the LLFA in theory should only have responsibility for groundwater and runoff.

They don't have responsibility to the main river, that's the environment agency. But

as you can see from that slide,

we're actually connecting with the environment agency,

the County Council,

Daryl's been very inspired in that,

the District Council,

FWAG, Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group,

the Evenload Capital Partnership,

which is a crucial environmental group

as part of wild oxfordshire,

expanding that out to the North Cotswold Farm,

plus don't talk about landscape recovery.

When you put the heading of flooding

across the top of a page, suddenly there is so many bits of information and details that

you have to get your head around. So, 2024, November 24th, that's our local pub. They

were serving, believe it or not. We do it down in Welles. Unfortunately, Archie's cellar

got flooded and all his champagne bottles floated off and all the labels disappeared.

So we had a lovely time the next month deciding whether we were drinking Prosecco or Dom Perignon.

The actual rain event that occurred during the day before and that day didn't account

for very much.

It was 45 millimetres recorded at the Broughton in the Water rain station.

But we don't need very much water to actually cause Broughton to flood.

And I'm not talking purely about Broughton here.

We've got Simon from Shipton to Witchwood.

So Morton in the marsh floods, even loads floods,

Broadwell floods, we flood, Shipton to which would flood,

Milton into which would floods,

Askadin to which would floods, Blenning floods.

So the whole even load catchment

is affected by flood events.

We are therefore very, very sensitive to any impact

on any catchment within our area.

And that's why I'm focusing specifically

on Bledington flooding.

But the work we're doing is looking to improve upstream effects and downstream effects.

We don't want to just sort Bledington out and cause problems elsewhere.

So to that effect we carried out a catchment study.

This is an animation, a heck razz animation.

It's actually American army software which is free to air.

and what it illustrates is the flooding in Bledington specifically.

This is Bledington here.

My cursor's working.

I'll use my...

Is this a model rather than an actual event?

This is a model on a 2020 event.

So this is Bledington.

This is the even load running down.

This is one of the four main rivers that hit Bledington.

and this is Cornwall Brook coming in, Bledington Brook and West goat Brook.

So we have the confluence of all of those main rivers here at the even load,

at the mill, I don't know if any of you know Bledington.

Then the single output outlet is the even load.

So I'll just run this animation just quickly, it's only a 20 second illustration,

illustration with a little bit of noise. You can see that the actual even load is beginning

to flood. This is December 23, 2020. And you can see we are now beginning to backfill into

Bledington. You can see the water starting to creep back towards Bledington. That's because

the even load is now beginning to riverlock down at the mill and is actually pushing water

back so the darker blue in the north of the picture you can see is deeper water

and that is coming down from you guys from Mortimer's Marsh and obviously the

even though they're running all the way through so if we just carry on that

animation you can see how important the influence of the even though it is and

we have two levels of flooding in in Bledington that's level one we're

looking at about six to eight properties being flooded.

You can see that little line running through the village,

little bit of blue spec.

So about six properties are flooding at this point.

The higher level flooding,

and it's a point that very readily except,

as we discussed with Robin,

the higher level flooding is actually influenced

from the water coming from the Southwest.

So in the bottom left -hand corner is Westcote Brook,

which is not relevant to the Mortney March catchment,

However, what it does do, as you will see very quickly, over tops and then adds to the village.

That is then adding to the water that's actually in the village.

And as you can see, we are now an island.

And for 12 hours we are cut off.

It's a very flashy flood.

Flassy means it comes and it goes very quickly.

So it does disappear.

But at that point, we have now got problems.

If anybody's injured, then it's going to need a helicopter.

That's why we're so concerned about any effect on a catchment.

So to illustrate that, this is a bund that was built in 2012 to protect the village from

the West Cote Brook.

Again, not pertinent necessarily to the Morton in Marsh catchment.

But if you look at this bund, this is 10 past 12 on November the 24th, Sunday morning.

And you can see water starting to approach the village from the south.

Half an hour later, this is that.

That's leading into the village.

Now the even -load catchment, that's the even -load running down from Dalesford,

and you can get aware of the geography, down towards Bledington.

and you can see we agree the even though catchment is a very effective water

water plane it fills it takes us it's a huge amount of water and then it recedes

but you can see that water is coming down from Moreton in Marsh just an

example of a house

This is the river

Katrine who lives in the house

It's the same level as the river

I didn't realise you had sound

And that river outside normally is too deep.

So high.

We've gone to the next one and it is low down through to the village.

Look at that current.

This is out of my window and forgive me for the pallets and bins floating around, they

were just swept along by the current.

still rising.

The first time we were concerned about loss of life.

You can see in the road there the torrent and very simply the levels of water that we

see in Bledington.

That's what the village does look like and this is what it looked like at twilight on

the 24th.

Now I'll show you those pictures purely to highlight how sensitive we are to any involvement

in any of the catchments that affects us because we had 1 .3 million cubic metres of water flowing

through Bledington from Bledington Brook and West Co. Brook on that day.

470 swimming pools and the estimated damage was 1 .8 million pounds again from

the catchment study. We did our own study 19 properties responded and we got over

just over a million so that involves insurance, personal investment, cost of

services etc. So our funding model is based on the LLFA, we've already spent

220 ,000 on us through a topo study, catchment study, outline design,

management, project management. And crucially we've had about 150 ,000

spent at the moment on NFN, so that is money provided through DEFRA on the

Water Environment Improvement Fund, Thames Water Smart Catchment work and

we've earmarked, or the EA have earmarked, the local levy funding of around half a

million to rectify the problem we find in Bledington, which encompasses engineering

works, the natural flood management and village protection measures.

So again, this is the even load catchment and there's Moreton in Marsh, little Moreton

in Marsh on the top right, but you can see how all of those flow pathways affect the

even load and all the dwellings that are dotted along there. We've had quite a bit of work

done in the Morton in Marsh area as Eileen's already highlighted. NFM work, we've had work

done ourselves which is south west of the village and then finally further down the

You do have some flood mitigation measures in your plans.

Got some specific questions about that.

In terms of you talking about flow rates,

concerned about extreme weather conditions,

setting hard roof surfaces, hard surfaces,

running into this basin that's going to be built.

Need to know how big that basin is,

because what's the capacity?

because if it's over 10 ,000 cubic metres it's going to run foul of the reservoir act.

And we need to make sure and highlight the fact that any flood mitigation has

to be built and braced. We cannot have a torrent of water, a tsunami running down

from Moreton Marsh from a housing estate where the actual attenuation

isn't up to it. And I want to be just reassured that the attenuation basin

that you're building is going to actually meet that capacity but also on

a wider planning aspect making sure that flooding is front and centre. We're a

very wet area, we get wet. Our parish council has got a canoe

literally in our flood response plan in case we need to rescue people. So that's

my presentation. I just wanted to highlight a specific problem in

but across the whole catchment.

Mr Green, do you have any response on those specific questions at the end?

Absolutely yes. So the base that we designed holds just shy of 4 ,000 metres cubed of storage.

To be a larger, more pounding president whilst you're off the medium line.

I didn't realise they were back on. Did everyone hear me?

Yeah, okay, great.

Seat 4 - 1:37:34

I'll start again.

Okay, so it's just just shy of 4 ,000 metres cubed of storage

Holding that basin to be a large impounded reservoir. It would need to be over

25 ,000 which would drop down to 10 ,000 in

Wherever to come in so we're below that

Needless to say it will still be designed and constructed robustly

To hold that water. It's in terms of the the rate of water that could enter the basin at once

You mentioned you were concerned about whether that would be considered and it would.

In the design software, we don't look at a single storm.

We run multiple storms from 15 minutes through to seven days.

So that same 100 year plus climate change rainfall event, hitting it all at once or

over a prolonged period, we consider all of that in the design.

The attenuation in terms of being suitable, we designed to the 100 year storm event, we

account for future climate change, 30 % increase in rainfall intensity.

Additionally we account for potential urban creep in the catchment.

People put patio in or decking, we account for that.

We do a 10 % uplift in that volume again.

Plus there is also free board applied above it.

So above that top water level is at least a 300mm freeboard which can easily contain extra volume.

Can I just ask on that freeboard, I think it's 400mm, but is the 4000 cubic metres inclusive of the freeboard?

Exclusive of the freeboard.

No, that is just the 100 year climate change volume, it's just shy of 4000 and then everything is designed around that.

So it'll be above it.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Can I ask Mr Green to indicate whether or not the effect of those measures compared to the dismissed

Seat 29 - 1:39:36

would make matters worse, would make matters better or would have no effect?

So implementing the basin will make things better.

So again jumping the gun perhaps here.

We are attenuating the discharge rate from the site at the equivalent Greenfield discharge rate.

That's the mean annual runoff rate from the site and it's fixed at present day conditions.

So in future climate change as a lifetime of development will still be discharging at today's rate.

And at, for example, the 30 -year storm event that would represent a reduction.

He looks at his notes.

Of 56 % at the 30 -year storm event and it will be a reduction of 68 % at the 100 -year storm

event, just for example.

Is it Councillor Randall now?

Yes, thank you.

Seat 20 - 1:40:48

I think you can see why we changed the order, because everything that's in my – or at

least most of the things in my statement which of course were circulated beforehand has actually

been said already in some detail.

So I'm just going to highlight a few particular points and end off with a particular legal

issue.

First of all, the name Morton in Marsh, the word Marsh appears advisedly.

Very helpfully, BWB in one of their early papers says the Marsh is less than two centimetres

below ground level.

And I think that is an important issue to bear in mind.

And as we've heard before, Morton in Marsh still has floods and will no doubt continue

to do so.

And one of the features, I think, of the NPPF, and indeed is also mentioned by the BWB, is

that any development should not increase the result of flooding elsewhere.

and it's quite clear that there is that risk.

And some we have heard said that it would actually be only a minor increase

if this development goes ahead, but it will go into the even load,

and that's what we've heard already.

And we've heard that, of course, there's going to be a delay,

although that clearly is now slightly an issue

as to how long it will be before the sewage is dealt with appropriately.

The one issue, just a little bit about Shipton, which of course is further downstream, we had serious flooding in 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2024.

And one of the particular issues in our area is we have a long -standing residential home,

which is mentioned in my notes, and the residents there in 2007 were rescued in boats, and in

2024 didn't have to be rescued in boats, but the river rose by 3 .44 metres, which is the

highest it has risen ever. And I think that's important to bear in mind.

So climate change has been mentioned, but not to any great extent. But the figures clearly

show that as far as Oxfordshire is concerned, it has had the highest ever rainfall. In fact,

in my statement in February 2026, it was the wettest month we've ever had in Oxfordshire.

and indeed it is going to increase in accordance with what the Met Office actually is saying.

Interestingly, in Broadhomes' latest annual report, they say climate change is not deemed to be a significant risk to the company.

Well, it may not be a risk to the company, but it's certainly a risk to the homes that they're often building,

particularly if they're in existing floodplains.

I am starting a campaign to try and get parish councils, which will follow what my parish

council has done, to object to any planning development, any development on any flood

zone or any other land that has been flooded, because we are now as a nation continually

building on flood plains and the outlook for the future is I think very serious for those

who actually buy a property that is actually on a floodplain or close to one.

So the issue that I'm particularly interested in is, as I describe it, the thin end of the

wedge. I was both a client, being a resident concerned, and my firm acted for a very important

restricted covenant case. Interestingly, the firm concerned is Lawrence Graham, which is

the predecessor of Gowling's, just a bit of a background. We, when we went to the Land's

Tribunal, the judge said the reason to refuse this particular restricted covenant is because

if that was agreed, then all the other 150 people who lived on the estate could then apply.

And that's the first time the thin end of the wedge appeared as, in that context, Richard the Covenants.

One of the barristers that we regularly used was Timothy Mould,

who is now in the High Court, and he is in charge of the planning area.

and when, some time ago, he said that is something that would have to be watched,

because indeed he's correct, because it is now being used increasingly in planning terms.

And the reason why I think it's so important is that Morton is likely to have another 2 ,000,

let's ignore this particular development, another 2 ,100 homes,

Therefore, if you allow one development such as proposed, which will only perhaps have

a limited effect on the river, it's going to increase, because once you allow one through,

it's going to be immensely difficult for CDC to refuse.

I am actually taking this up with DEFRA, because I think it's got a much wider approach.

Therefore, I think the thin end of the wedge should apply in this particular case because

to allow that will make it so much easier for any other scheme in Moreton in Marsh,

particularly a windfall site, which is what this is, to gain approval later on.

And then last but not least, I am representing other parish councils that have approximately

10 ,000 households in each of them so it's not just one parish council it is

all the way down to the even load not quite but very close to where it joins

the Thames. Okay thank you. Mr. Tucker any comments on the thin end of the wedge?

It's difficult to respond without dipping my toe into the concept of

precedent, I think the best thing might very well be to take the extract from precedents

in terms of the planning encyclopaedia and just add that to the core documents. Essentially,

precedents is rarely a relevant factor in relation to planning decisions which have

to be determined on their own individual merits. You would have to form the view that the grant

of permission A makes an otherwise unacceptable development acceptable in the future and it's

difficult to see why that will be the case in terms of the future. This is a

site where you hear on our evidence as you've just heard from Mr. Green we are

not making a minimal or limited effect in terms of the even load. There will be

active betterment within the climate change plus 30 years, climate change at

100 year events as Mr. Green has just identified. So our case is not a

worsening. It's therefore difficult to see if that's that evidence is accepted

why that would make a scheme which would give rise to a significant worsening in

terms of flood risk of the even load acceptable so doesn't arise on the facts

however if it's of assistance will provide the extract in terms of the

notes into section 70 which deal with material considerations which will be

familiar territory in any event okay yes please do so but do you have any

immediate response that councillor I I'd love this to go to the High Court and see

what Mr Justice Moultez about it.

So do I.

I challenge the better question.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, no further questions from me.

Thank you.

Other than, do you have any data or figures which back up your,

That would suggest that the use of the climate change plus 30 % 100 year event is not sufficient.

The answer is I have only figures of that nature. I think one would like to have had more research.

I did think of actually going to leave and load and giving you a bottle of water that's there at the moment

because I'm afraid it's pretty brown I'm afraid. But there we are.

Okay, thank you. Mr Lewis, are you next?

I wasn't going to make a statement. The only thing I would say is coming back,

sorry to harp on a point, but the statutory consultee on the 17th of December in the House

of Lords Baroness Taylor of Stevenage replying in a written question said

water companies are not statutory consortees on individual planning

applications but they are consulted as part of a preparation of local

development plans. Now to my simple mind this is an individual planning

application and as such unless a good Baroness is incorrect for the

government water companies are not statutory consortees.

I'm still not sure what actually turns on this.

It's still...

That's the government answer to a specific question which was placed

by a conservative peer for a specific reason.

So, you know, that's my basis.

The government tends to be right on these matters.

You thought that was true.

I don't think you have any immediate response, Mr. Tucker,

or if you want to just take the question.

No, no, sir.

With respect, it actually doesn't matter.

They are the water undertaker.

They have been consulted.

They have provided information for this inquiry,

and they do not object.

The esoteric question as to whether or not they fall

within the relevant part of the GDPO for particular purposes

or wider purposes is a fascinating discussion.

I know that we can have a conversation

about behind the scenes, but whether that affects you

or just, I frankly doubt the position is our capacity still.

I just think it questions, a statutory consultee sounds to most people like an organisation

which is independent, like the environment agency, when in fact they are simply a money

making enterprise whose purpose is to make money for their equity investors.

That's their role and unfortunately we can argue the merits of that, but that is how

they stand.

So I think it casts doubt on the accuracy and possibly at times the veracity of their evidence.

I'm not a statutory consultant.

Okay, thank you.

So is that all the statements that people were due to make?

Obviously we've covered quite a lot of the ground that we were going to talk about anyway during the roundtable session anyway.

I don't know whether we just all continue with that really up to lunch and see what more we need to talk about.

I think particularly yourself, Mr Lewis, because you've really sort of started to talk through your information.

But also from the other interested parties, if there was this, if we sort of devolve this now into the round table session,

Perhaps starting with you Mr Lewis because obviously that's the evidence we haven't fully

explored yet.

I'm happy to do that.

I think there's some questions about, almost I think there are some significant questions

about understanding of both the practicality of this, which I think has partly been explained

by the route that the sewage will take, but also about the process by which improvements

are done, the linkage with investment plans, the reliability of the water company. In fact,

I just simply now quickly checked on Thames Water's website and in the last two weeks,

which is the last time I checked, all reference to dates of completion at Moreton vanished,

which is what Thames Water regularly do, they just change that website

and so the 2029 -2030

estimate which was there two weeks ago and we take screenshots regularly to make sure that they

can't rewrite history

we are in the era of Big Bravo with Thames Water

and that now has got no date on it at all

there's no completion date on that upgrade. But would it, if there was a

condition which said that the development couldn't go ahead unless that had happened

Does that matter in your opinion or is that a risk for the developers to bear?

I think it's a question of the conditions.

The condition of first occupancy to me is useless, as I think the Spitfire development's proven.

I've got evidence that phased planning development or development phasing plans, whatever you want to call them,

are anti -democratic, as a good example from West Oxfordshire.

I can quote to you later if you want.

I don't believe that they are possible in the position where an upgrade of the sewage

works is required.

I don't think people maybe understand what that means, but it's a rebuild of the sewage

works and you can't effectively accommodate one house or two houses or five houses.

It will continue to be illegal until it's completed.

And the grampian condition that I would like to see imposed and which West Oxfordshire

we're actually exploring at the moment and had legally tested to the best of my knowledge,

is that the development shall not proceed beyond ground level. Now that has a number

of advantages. One is that should the planning permission, sorry, should the upgrade of the

sewage works not happen within three years, the planning permission is enacted and so

the developer doesn't lose his planning permission. It's also fair to the developer because they

not going to expend huge amounts of money building properties which if the

planning condition of Grampian was enacted in the case that the works

sewage works hadn't been upgraded the developer would stand to lose huge sums

of money with the with the with the property sat empty they will only have

to build to ground level and the third thing is it's fair to the local

authority because it is not fair on cash strapped, frankly,

inadequately funded local authorities

to act as planning police when the young couple who've

bought their house and the first rateable value of that house

is now due, which is when the first occupancy is,

as I understand by law, considered to be the case,

when a local authority planning inspector stands there

as they walk up with their two suitcases

and their dog and small child and say no you can't come in. I mean it's hard to

see how that actually works in practise whereas something relating to no

development above ground is fair transparent and easily easily and

maintained as an enforceable condition by the local authority and if Bloor

Homes are confident that Thames Water will have their sewage treatment works

upgraded, what could possibly be the problem?

What's the apparent thoughts?

Can I ask you again, sir?

Yeah.

I'll take instructions and then we'll potentially deal with this

again in the commission session.

There is a point that's just been missed out in relation to that.

Before the young couple buy their house,

before they pack their suitcases and go up the driveway,

they walk out, through local authority searches.

A local authority search will identify whether or not

there's been a discharge of the relevant condition.

If my clients have built the house

and seem to sell the house

without having discharged the condition

which allows occupation,

my clients are profoundly unlikely to be able to sell

to a young couple of other ones.

So the point about policing is you become self -policing

and the risk then falls commercially

upon the developer on that stage

as to what stage they go to.

In other words, you just don't need to police it

because my clients will not be able to sell a house,

which would be breached for planning condition.

If a solicitor doesn't pick that up for search,

then the solicitor will have that particular forensic net

on their log, as it were.

So there is a self -policing point.

In terms of how the cash -strapped planning

of severe food matters, it's dead easy.

Because in the planning context,

there are planning contravention notices.

There's planning contravention notices

if there's even a hint that there is a problem,

we can see how intense the scrutiny is in terms of how well to upgrade it locally.

If there is a hint that my clients are looking to permit occupation or sale of properties

without having this GRD condition, the authority will be able to serve a PCN that my clients

will be bound to respond to, which would reveal whether or not they are acting in British condition.

And to do so would be a criminal offence for British condition that is to serve,

which is reputation in catastrophic pro -national counter -willing.

So there are a whole series of, how can I put it, direct and indirect incentives

upon the client to avoid exactly the situation that's being put forward

beyond the suggestion that my client should be required to get to the stage of halting work

up to that particular point and having a gap in relation to building schedules

and we appreciate how it goes at different points at different points in time

whilst potentially there is a delay on what rights have been anticipated in terms of the

suit and treatment that's having been upgraded.

That's an income ocean risk lifeline to manage because they can schedule their building programme,

whereas the notion of stopping at different points in time literally achieves no public benefit.

So there are a series of different cheques here, both in terms of private law and public law,

which prevents that situation.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Can I ask you a few questions?

Yes, sorry, my name is Robert Easto. I'm a Norton resident.

So what's your surname?

Easto. E -A -S -P -O -E.

Okay, thank you.

I'd just like to take exception to the gentleman's comments there

on the basis that I live in a property in Norton

for development not by law

for which the developer is in confirmation of these various conditions in the development

and they haven't been taken to the court. They don't have the reputation of damage

destroyed as you should suggest and it all comes down to whether the local authorities

prepared to have an enforcement mechanism that actually does the job. So I take the

The law says one thing, practise is it doesn't happen.

And that with respect is exactly what happened with the phased planning development for housing

in Minster level where Thames Water agreed a development phasing plan with the applicants

and when we asked under environmental information regulations for a copy of the sign off for

that planning condition, not only were we refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality

that the then Chief Executive of the Chief Planning Officer, Abi Fettis, the West Oxfordshire

District Council, was also denied that.

Now you then had the ludicrous situation of the Chief Planning Officer trying to sign

off on a planning condition when the water company and the development company refused

to give it over on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

I can back that all up if anybody wants it, but of course there is additional paperwork

to this inquiry.

Is there, so in addition to planning, is there not rules to do the statute duties of the

water company as well that would prevent occupation of a house if there was not sufficient water?

No, the water company, if a house is occupied and a sewer is end mained, then the water

company will take that, they will take the connexion fee, they will take the annual

fee and they will deal with it. And I think people have to understand how bad the water

company, the water system has been. Anybody who watched Dirty Business on Channel 4 will

be quite clear about how bad things is and how corrupt water companies have become.

We are in a wild west of sewage and the only way to control this, the Environment Agency

has largely left the space because it's been told to.

And I'm sorry that, you know, I can't back that up without dragging people here from

the EA who would happily do it if they were allowed to.

But we are in a position where local authorities and with respect, so you as effectively, you

know, the inspector, have to understand that without a local authority or planning inspector

taking robust view of sewage capacity, the ability of water companies to deal with it,

We are in a position where Thames are going bust in October 2026.

You have Silverpoint and Elliott hovering to strip them of their assets.

They are effectively broke.

They are junk bonded by all of the major credit agencies.

Without a robust and realistic trigger for development,

which prevents overwhelming of our water treatment systems,

then we are at the mercy of people who do not care.

Now I take on board the comments you make about searches and local authority searches.

You know, they should work.

There are numerous examples of Section 106 agreements which should work and don't.

There are people in Whitney and Carterton waiting for playgrounds and various 106 agreements which have never been enacted.

There are people who live in houses with planning conditions against them who shouldn't be there.

Now I fail to see, and I understand about building schedules, I get that, but if Bloor

has confidence that the water company will upgrade its sewage treatment works at Moreton

in the Marsh in line with their requirements, then they should be able to factor that into

their planning.

If they haven't got that confidence then frankly they should not be building because otherwise these people here and the rest of West

Oxfordshire and the even load will suffer the consequences make no mistake even though it is a basket case

I've worked in the water industry since 1980

I've watched it disappear this ecology get damaged and most of that is due to poor quality sewage treatment works and

Planning inspector planning appeal planning committee after committee that I've attended

duck this and without somebody robustly standing up for our environment in a

logical practical and legally defensible way then we are doomed to more of the

same and I think that owners unfortunately now rests with you and

I've made my case on that you know it's up to obviously the opponent to make

that yes sir so I'll go take your name please

We see temple wars are saying we can take over 50 properties, they produce a phased scheme.

Phased scheme doesn't make any reference to what word is going to be put in.

So anything that should have been put in to get more than 50 never actually occurs.

And that is the problem.

You have a phased scheme, let's do the next 50.

But they've actually said, or done any of the work that was required in the first place

for them to get past their religion.

That's one thing. The second issue, and I would hope that the outcome of the initial discussions is good,

is as far as attenuation is concerned, the work for work production of computerised systems to show you what happens

in the effect of 30 years, 100 years, or whatever it is, in the attenuation basis and in the sciences,

they only work if they are not connected and they work effectively.

And that is to ensure that whoever is responsible for putting people into the houses happen

after those attenuation ponds are actually worked in an operation.

We have examples where we have lots of attenuation ponds around developments and when it's pouring

and we have the river outside going from one level to six foot higher.

These attenuation ponds are not full.

Where is the water going?

Where is the connexion?

Who cheques?

That doesn't happen and we have a development that's been going for some while on the Blenheim

Estate where we had a number of properties that's been found to not having their sewage

connected to the correct sewage pipe work is now connected to highways pipe work.

It goes through into our meadow and discharges raw sewage into the river that then gets picked

up downstream and I'm some half a mile away as the water comes through the

through the town and I'm clearing brambles and things from six foot higher

than the current level and I'm finding panty linings and everything else

because that is what has come from those properties and the EA say it's a

discharge from two or three properties so it's not sufficient for them to deal

with as a discharge and take action and we have our local councillor who then

says I will take this forward and this has happened for two, three years, nothing has

happened and we continue to have raw sewage going through into the river. The connexions

and the enforcement doesn't happen. If the attenuation that's been suggested for this

particular development is put in place and it has worked and you can give a condition

that will guarantee that it applies and it will work and it will be connected and it

will fill up first before the water gets into that stream that will then exacerbate the

down flow, great.

Prove it.

Put the condition in hard enough to make sure that that works.

Anything to say to what you just heard?

The problem is, sir, first of which is you had examples of

where things haven't been designed properly,

things haven't been connected properly,

with other conditions which haven't been specified,

haven't been enforced.

The specific question that you asked was raised about a

no -occupation condition.

I stand by that submission.

Paragraph 201 of the MPPF tells us what we are doing here and what we're not doing here.

This is not a public inquiry into Thames Water and all its various failings, or indeed the privatisation of the water industry and all its various failings.

The planning system is about the acceptable use of land. There are other regimes of control.

In terms of those other regimes of control, view services in place of certain use states are enjoined to assume that those other regimes of control will operate properly.

That includes planning enforcement. And the way that one does that in this context is one, decided to plan by use of language of progress as a matter of principle.

two, put in place conditions which are enforceable, and three, work on the assumption that an authority will do its job properly in discharging certain matters.

For example, ensuring that the attenuation basin has an easy to operate, relatively low maintenance facility to ensure that it's there properly.

But it's not to guarantee that somehow a pipe will be incorrectly connected. That's a matter that's dealt with under other regimes.

It's not to assess whether conditions on a scheme which is not before you in particular circumstances might not be in force.

It is whether or not this particular land use is appropriate and what are the appropriate conditions to put into place.

So I don't see any way to minimise the concerns that are being raised.

We live in a deeply imperfect world and outside of here over a pint I'm quite sure we'll probably agree with much of what's being said.

The question is whether or not the decision in planning terms, which is a land use decision,

means that this is appropriate use of land and whether or not it's capable of being brought forward and acceptable past the plan.

So for example, questions about the design of the attenuation basin is not before you, sir.

The question in principle at an outline stage is whether it is capable of being designed in a way which will work properly.

As I opened, this is trial and tested technology.

In terms of the enforcement of it, we have to work on the assumption in this context,

in this form, that other machines will work properly.

If you're in an imperfect world and if we have a tackle, it doesn't work properly.

That just should yield from your primary task in this case.

Can I just come back on that?

So we need to split the surface water element away from the foul water.

That's very clear.

So, you know, I take your point about the attenuation point.

But in terms of the legality, you are entitled to expect that a regime operated by an environment

agency will function.

However, the environment agency have clearly raised their concerns about the current legality

of the Morton in the Master who's treatment works.

Now it is your prerogative to add to that regulation.

That is my understanding.

You do not have to solely rely on it.

You have the right to reinforce that by a decision made with a grand condition which

reinforces the environment agencies concerns.

For anybody in the room that doesn't understand, and that is why water company finance is important,

all water company upgrades are in tranches of five years.

They are called AMP.

They are five -year programmes.

The next one is 2025 to 29.

So, let's make no mistake about it.

Morton in Marsh should have been upgraded by April 2025, but instead Thames Water stole

and that's not an emotive subject, they stole £1 .5 billion, they admitted that to the African

committee, which should have been spent upgrading our sewage treatment works.

We have all been robbed.

They have now put a time scale of 2029 or 30 for an upgrade.

The Environment Agency works within that framework.

It has clearly raised its concerns.

As of today Thames Water has removed the 2029 -2030 date on its website.

You can look live now if you want to.

It's under River Health Thames Water frequently asked questions, Morton in the Marsh.

It has no date on there now as of the moment for upgrading Morton in the Marsh to its treatment

works.

We cannot and neither can you so rely on that being done, which is why it is imperative for you to put a condition on

which is robust enough that it protects the people of Morton in the event that Thames Water does not

do what it says it would do. The Environment Agency has no power to bring it to task in that time other than prosecution

and that clearly is not going to impact on the quality of the SEWS treatment works or its ability to treat sewage effluent.

It would just put more financial pain on an already crippled water company.

So in practical terms to upgrade that sewage treatment works,

there is nothing in town at the moment that tells you when that will be done, as of today.

Nothing.

And the other point I'm trying to understand that we briefly touched on before is

the difference between the connexion to the works and the works themselves.

Could you say a bit more on that please?

I could go in today and ask Thames Water if I can put a new connexion in for 100 houses

and they will say the local network needs upgrading, that's where the 20 months comes

from. So if you consider it as a dendritic network, there is a sewer pipe coming from

each house, a new property, into a bigger sewer pipe and that network goes into a sewage

treatment works. That dendritic network has to be increased in capacity to avoid

local flooding. Without it sewage will come up in people's gardens in their

toilets or whatever and that's where the expert witness, sorry I beg your pardon

I've forgotten your name. Mr. Green. Mr. Green sorry it's it's it's an easy name

and I apologise, where Mr. Green has got his 20 months for,

tends for to routinely quote 20 months following granting

of planning permission to design, upgrade,

and instal a local network upgrade.

That then gets the sewage away from Bloor Homes new development,

but it then passes it to a sewage treatment works,

which already is breaking its dry weather flow permit conditions.

And if you look at the flow modelling for what will happen with 190 hells, it will simply

make it more illegal, which is why the Environment Agency has told Thames to apply for a new

dry weather flow permit, which it hasn't done.

It's just put a pre -application in.

So there's nothing even at the planning stage at the moment.

At the point where the sewage hits the sewage treatment works, it will then be discharged

and at the moment it will be discharged more likely than not illegally.

It has bridged its dry weather flow permit conditions.

To build sewage treatment works of the size of water, you are looking at a sum of, and

they are inflated sums, but that's another discussion, £15 -20 million to upgrade it.

That kind of money.

And that kind of money is only available in that five -year asset management plan which

the water companies bid to off what for. They've had their settlement

Thames had the option to appeal to the

CMA it declined that option is put it on hold because of the machinations of their financial structure

So you are as an inspector at the moment

Facing a development which will put something like 60 to 70 tonnes of sewage a day

extra into sewage treatment system

which will then go to the sewage treatment works, which is not capable really of accepting that in a moment.

That's what the environment agent is telling you.

And at the other end of the deal, you have no surety that the company vested with upgrading that works, i .e. Thames Water,

has either the motivation, the finance or the plan to do so.

And the regulator, the environment agency, and my learned colleague there is quite correct, you should be able to rely on them,

They've told you that the water company is at the present time in breach of its prime

weather flow permit.

There is nothing that gives anybody in this room any confidence that this can be resolved,

which is why you need a very robust, very easily enforceable and very clear Grampian

planning condition.

And I have done this spiel to so many people now, to so many inspectors and so many planning

committees and sometimes it gets listened to, sometimes it doesn't, but without it

the people in Moreton are going to get flooded with a bit more sewage and the

next one will make it worse and the next one will make it worse.

Yes Mr. Green, if you just, yeah, I was going to generally respond and I'm also interested in

this upgrading of the network versus upgrading of the treatment works, just

from your perspective please.

So going back to...

Can you put your microphone on please?

Sorry.

So going back to Thames Water's response to the application, yes they do say network

upgrades are required to accommodate the additional flows from the development.

The reason for that is it's likely to, the requirements are identified when necessary

in order to avoid sewage flooding and or potential pollution incidents.

That's the reason that they gave in it.

I'd also point out that Thames Water is a sewer operator,

illegally obligated to deal with sewer infrastructure.

They're the only people who can.

That's their role, is to deal with sewer flows

and water treatment.

And I can only reiterate that yes, the EA did raise it,

I can't deny that at all,

but it also was not a point of objection.

But then the treatment works itself?

Maybe that's a bit of just not understanding yet how that differs from the network.

So the connecting pipe work going from the development into the site,

they will need to be upgraded so that the water can actually make it to the treatment facilities themselves.

And in terms of what that looks like, that is to be determined by Thames Water.

It's their asset.

The developer identifies what they would like to do and that goes to Thames Water and they

will say, okay, we're going to model it, these are the upgrades they're going to make and

it's somewhat behind closed doors in terms of what they want to do.

But my understanding, and this I've got this wrong, is that Mr Lewis raises an additional

concern about the actual treatment works itself having the ability to cope.

That has not been raised by Thames Water.

Sorry, just to put the finance of this in some perspective and as to why Thames Water

might not be rushing to upgrade, if we are looking at figures of, let's keep it broad,

10 to 20 million, that's the kind of figures, maybe more, and Oxford's 435 million as we

sit at the moment to upgrade it, which is crazy, but we are looking at 10 to 20 million,

the kind of fine that Thames would expect to receive if it breached its permit

conditions, it will not get prosecuted and fined for the next five or six years

because that's the court running at the moment and the kind of fine it might

expect is in the region of a million pounds maybe. So Thames have actually

factored in the cost of pollution into their planning decisions and that's

borne out by the Kroll report which went to the High Court and the Court of Appeal, all

of Thames Water's forthcoming fines, expected permit breaches are all laid out in the addendum

to that. And it's a system which is basically pollute for profit. And that's why we could

have no confidence in the water company's ability or even incentive to do this. Which

is why, going back to where we are, we have to have that robust planning condition from

this appeal which protects both law and gives them the ability to understand

what's coming down the road for them and you know I have every sympathy with them

and also more importantly protects the people of Moreton and protects the

environment the whole of the even though downstream which is you know only at

poor most of their environmental condition if you look at the

environment agencies reasons for that there are nice reasons for not achieving

good ecological status, most of them or a lot of them relate to water quality assets

failing.

This is very, very clear and very easy stuff.

But I'm afraid the planning system fails to get to grips with it and ducks it time after

time and companies like Bloor are allowed to go forward with weak planning conditions

and that cannot continue.

It really cannot.

If I can ask a simple question.

If we all agree it's the Thames Waters responsibility to provide the networks for developments,

and we're all happy that they should be capable of doing this,

and we all agree that this should be done to ensure that the dealing of sewage is done correctly,

what's the problem with a simple condition is you don't occupy one until it's been done?

Thank you.

If I may, sir, plainly what's being said for the last 40 minutes seems not to have regard

to exactly the conditions that are proposed.

Conditions 7 and 8 bear a clear reading.

And when we come to the discussion on the condition to make sense of what's along at that for the morning,

my client is not ducking the need for appropriate condition in this case for Act 2.

My flight is asking you, sir, to act in accordance with the Secretary of State's policy, whose

steady staff, to assume that other ratios of control will operate properly. That includes

Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1990, what was the obligation to provide a sewage

network. You're obliged to do that. That's what the courts tell you to do, sir. In terms

of the discharge of Conditions 7 and 8, which are in turn saying thou shalt not until the

that's completely or in the opportunity that a basic approach is intended.

So all has to go through the philtre of the authority discharging the condition properly.

And again, you still have to operate on assumptions.

The authority will do its job properly and will not be advised matters.

I hold no brief at Thames Water.

I hold no brief at the Environment Agency.

I am not seeking to suggest that Thames Water or the Environment Agency

are doing their job correctly or not correctly.

All I am saying, sir, is that you have to work on the assumption that matters are enforceable

and that the assumption is that they will do their job correctly.

In terms of what they are or not, that's a matter for other ratios of control.

Okay, I think we can come back to this at a conditions session.

Yes, sir, Mr Lewis?

Sorry, I hadn't seen the conditions, Stephanie. Where are they?

They've been sitting on their systems.

Okay, so that's new evidence today, is it?

Uh, yes.

Okay, so I wasn't allowed to put mine in but we're expected to break that.

Okay, I'll just make that point.

There is a difference because the conditions are agreed between the parties and are not about technical evidence.

So there's a distinction.

But the other thing is that the case you're probably referring to is a Gateshead case

where the appeal inspector ruled that Gateshead, Tam, Barrow Council, and thank you, could

rely on the environment agency.

There was in fact a functioning regulatory system.

But there are clear clear

Examples of

Divergence from that where Casey's opinion and I believe in a couple of cases and I cannot quote them

so my lady gentleman my friend may be able to where

Casey and planning law has said that you as an inspector have a right to rely when I reiterate that on the environment agency

but you also have a

a right to add your own planning condition.

And the Grampian condition is the one.

But I repeat, the first occupancy

and a phased planning or a development phasing plan,

however you want to call it, is unsatisfactory.

It's been proven to be unsatisfactory.

The first occupancy has failed for the Spitfire development.

It's palpably failed, tangibly failed.

That it did not work.

Secondly, I have that example as I have quoted you already about Minister Lovell and Whitney

at West Oxford District Council.

The Development Phasing Plan failed dramatically to the point that the Chief Planning Officer

was not granted access to the information which would have allowed her to discharge

her own planning condition.

How anti -democratic can we get?

This is the world in which reasonable people are asking reasonable things of one would

hope a reasonable planning process. And I understand the tilted balance. I understand

the way that the planning law has been changed. I understand the MPPF, but it doesn't take

away from this forum your opportunity to put in a robust grant unit. And I suggest respectfully

that that is no development above ground. It gives everybody surety. It gives everybody

clarity. It is transparent. And I believe it to be fair. And West Oxford, your district

Council are going to be using that one as a default.

That's their position because they've tried and failed development

phasing plans.

They've tried and failed or worried.

They've got something like seven or eight Grampians kicking around

now for first occupancy.

Many of them linked to church Hanbury sewers treatment works, which

at the moment will be in the Oxford Mail tomorrow for massive pollution

again and Thames water having no plan to upgrade it.

There are nearly a thousand houses propped up against a grampian on that.

On that sewage treatment works and we are heading to the same issue again at Moreton and we replay this time and time again.

Okay.

Well, I think we can revisit this at the condition session then.

Okay.

Are there any comments anyone wants to raise on anything to do with flooding, sewerage or drainage?

I wonder whether Bloor Homes could be asked whether they pay for this signature?

I certainly get over the problem.

I was wondering whether Bloor Homes might decide to make a substantial contribution to Thames Water

so they could indeed get this sewage work sorted out, so they could go ahead and people could live in there immediately rather than having to wait.

My clients have no intention of buying a planning permission.

That would be unlawful.

And I can also confirm payments such as that have to pass certain tests to do with being necessarily related and scared of kind.

And it wouldn't pass that because of the obligations on the statutory undertaker.

OK, thank you.

So, that goes on, we've covered off that roundtable session and the interested party statements.

So, I'm just going back to my timetable.

So, if perhaps we have a break for lunch and then come back with the appellant's presentations

and then all the discussions that might come out of that.

Unless anyone has anything else they wish to raise or talk about.

Just one question really.

We've already arranged out copies of the relevant parts of the encyclopaedia that deal with the precedent.

There's also the area of the same parts of the encyclopaedia which is the overlap of statutory codes and planning.

I don't know if that would be helpful to present.

What would require as well?

Yes please and obviously please give it to the interested parties as they're going to have a look at that.

And as always also electronically please.

I'm not sure what time it is now.

Is it eight?

No, it's not.

You got the new prance of one time,

you said the last time we touched on this,

is that, I think you've had,

Councillor Viviani's speaking notes.

Yes.

And I know it's special.

So it would be seven and eight.

Seven and eight, then it'd be,

Councillor Viviani would be ID nine,

then the presentation would be ID 10 by,

I'm sorry I forgot your name.

Mr. Simpson.

Do you think that we understand how the 30 limited effect

on planning this was suggested by our internal board?

Essentially yes.

I'm very high level.

I'd obviously please review this over the lunch break

and make any comments that you wish.

So I don't need the old stuff.

That's all I've read out before haven't I? So it's the new speaking notes.

Thank you.

So speaking note.

So ID8 and 9 were the two openings.

Seven of those I think were the two openings.

And then so Councillor Viviani would be 10.

Nine sir.

Nine sorry.

So 7 is my opening.

9 is the sponsor's.

8 is Mr. Lepe's.

9 is Councillor Viviani's speaking notes.

10 is the presentation.

11 will be the extract from the past.

The Chinese IPP, on the run of some platform precedent as a consideration, will copy the matters regulated by other statutory codes which is P70 .18.

Okay. So that additional to this?

That's going to be additional to this.

Yeah, so that would be 12.

Yes, sir.

I don't think there's any point in relation to it, it's just a point Mr Lewis was keen to say what's happened in relation to the Gateshead case and subsequently.

I'm absolutely not saying that there is an immateriality if it's covered by the statutory card of the vote.

My point is in paragraph 201 of the BPF which is the planning system has to operate on the assumption of the statutory federal operate problem.

Okay, thank you. I thought there was one other thing that we were talking about being submitted

at the back of my mind. Maybe it isn't.

The sign was sent out to me yesterday.

Yes, that was it.

I think we have put a copy on before we...

We're getting a copy made.

We have a copy for you, sir, and we're going to put a copy on the library table.

Can I just explain this to you?

So this is what was circulated previously. We could... it was entirely up to you obviously, sir,

that we could do the walk.

The walk is the hatch line here.

So effectively meeting on site, then walking into town,

and then coming back again,

and then leaving you to do the drive on your own.

What we'd suggest on the drive following the notes here

is that at point F, you get out of the car,

you walk them along the public right away,

then you come back again

and then carry on the drive afterward.

Okay, thank you.

So it looks like most of this can be by myself.

Okay, maybe even all of it.

This is like an open gate.

We can confirm that this afternoon.

Okay, thank you.

Just to cheque, what address do I send the presentation through to you?

What email address?

Wakefield can give you the email address.

Yes, they can help more than me, sorry, because it doesn't go directly to me.

It goes to a kind of admin address.

Mr. Wakefield can help you.

Brilliant, okay, thank you.

And are we going to, sorry to be dumb, but are we going to discuss these conditions this

afternoon?

I think it's programmed for tomorrow morning.

I think by the time we come back from this and hear from the appellants, are you not

available tomorrow?

It might be a struggle, but I was just looking at the, I'm just at first sight I've had of

these conditions and they don't seem very good to me, but anyway.

Okay, then we can try to get onto it at the start of the meeting if it's just your conditions.

If possible, if not I will try and come tomorrow. I realise how important it is, I understand that.

I need time to look at them all properly myself obviously and it won't just be this issue that I need to look at.

Okay.

Okay, anything else before we break for lunch?

Okay, it's 1 .23.

Shall we come back at 20 past two?

Is that okay with everybody?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

The inquiry is adjourned.

But that may have changed, I don't know.

Seat 20 - 2:34:24

Martin Evans was introduced tomorrow so he's not here today.

My understanding is he's agreed the agreement, the section 106 agreement in principle.

So we've got nothing further to add.

But if it was technical questions about those aspects of wording, we'd have to defer to him tomorrow.

If there are actually more planning related questions, I think we might be able to proceed without them anyway.

I think we should try and we can always see where we get to.

entirely happy to do that so and then we can always report back anyway so if

there are points that we need to come back on thank you I haven't I didn't

have a chance to review that and the conditions so we will have to come back to

more conditions but what I think if we've got time we will try to deal with

the two related to mr. Lewis if possible just to help him with his diary tomorrow

And the site visit, I increasingly think...

I see no reason why I can't do that by myself.

And then if it's just a gate left open scenario, then we also don't really have to arrange anything.

I'll just go when we're finished tomorrow.

So if everybody else is okay with that. Yes, Councillor?

I think it would be good to see the itinerary you have.

And to cheque where you want to go.

I think it might help you.

I thought this had been shared to me, sorry.

Can I ask if the opponent shares this with the interested parties?

And then by the end of today, you'd say if you have any thoughts on that.

Yes, thank you.

We'll put it in the library.

OK.

There are copies coming.

So we will...

OK.

So if we...

We'll have a mid -afternoon break, so if I can ask you to review that then, please.

Is there anything from anybody else before we turn to the appearance witness?

Well, evidence witnesses.

Nobody should call them.

Okay.

Then if I turn over to you, Mr Tucker.

Yes, sir.

So, first of my witnesses is Mr Stacey.

So the area we were proposing, if it's acceptable,

is Mr Stacey, Mr Jackson, and Mr Wavefield.

And so it's call up at 8 .2 .3 for Mr Stacey's evidence.

And so I'm happy to simply take Mr Stacey's credentials

as a red cell or formally introduce him

as if he was a witness in your hands.

That's right, it's fine.

Mr Stacey, are you here, Stacey?

I would be mindful of what housing witnesses know of your credentials.

That's all correct and that's set out, yes.

Thank you.

Could you explain what you understand to be the position in terms of the level of affordable need locally, please?

Yes, so in terms of the local need, there's been three council assessments that have been undertaken since 2013.

Those are set out in section 5 of my evidence.

They identify various different levels of need.

The most recent assessment is the 2020 local housing needs assessment, which is CD4 .2 .9,

And that identifies 125 affordable homes per annum between 2021 and 22 and 2041 and 42.

Your position with regard to the robustness of the assessment that have been undertaken?

I have set out in a fair few paragraphs 5 .16 to 5 .39 a number of observations as to why

a change in an assumption can affect the output of the needs assessment.

The biggest change is the backlog clearance period that each assessment has looked at.

The 2014 Schmar dealt with clearance of backlog over five years.

The 2016 Schmar was over 16 years and the most recent one is over 20 years.

The impact of that is that it has a reduction in the annual need of affordable housing.

My main concerns relate to the way the model has been devised, but saying that in terms

of the impact upon this case when we look at the future supply of affordable housing,

nothing particularly turns on that because even against the figure of 125, the future

supply of affordable housing in my opinion will be inadequate.

Thank you.

The message has been a bit more detailed in terms of your group.

Can you tell us what your opinion is on page 24?

Yes, so this is looking back at the past delivery of affordable housing since 2011 -12 and over

the past in terms of gross affordable housing delivery.

there's been a 2070 homes or 159 affordable homes per annum.

My main observation on this table is over the last three

years delivery is average just 93 affordable homes.

So that's probably more reflective of the current delivery

of affordable houses in cotswolds.

Thank you for that for short of the figure you described

the most recent housing needs assessment,

even though you have some concerns about that

And also, does that table take account of right to buy losses?

No, so right to buy losses are considered in the subsequent table, which is 6 .3.

So not quite the next table, 6 .3 page 23.

There you can see over the piece there's been the impact of 55 homes sold through the Right to Buy Act.

That's reduced the percentage of delivery from 31 % down to 30,

and the average delivery from 159 down to 155 homes per annum.

In terms of that comparison that you referred to against the needs assessment,

that is set out in figure 6 .6 on page 28 of my evidence,

where you can see a shortfall in delivery

over the three monitoring years available of 96 homes or 32 affordable

homes per annum against that minimum target of 125.

Yes that's against the Schma needs identified there's a shortfall against

that of the 2070 homes. So the last three years, significant shortfall of a five year period, how would you characterise that shortfall?

So I'd say that shortfall is serious and substantial in respect of it being below the target that I have concerns about in any event.

In terms of remediating that short form, looking forward, what are the prospects of that short

form being remediated?

In section 7 of my evidence, I considered the likely delivery of affordable housing.

that has been a combination of looking at the council's five -year housing land

supply statement from May 2025 that identifies a deliverable supply of 196

dwellings of all ten years paragraph 7 .14 of my evidence on page 38 sets out

how those sites are split between large sites,

sites between five and 10,

sites which are classed as small sites,

below 10, and a number of windfall dwellings.

I've also considered in appendix JS 10,

the deliverable supply from 24 sites

that would qualify for affordable housing.

those sites through consideration of the section 106 agreements and policy

requirements identifies 345 affordable homes in affordable homes in the next

five years being deliverable I've then taken the past prevailing rate of gross

affordable homes delivery for the windfall allowance because those are

sites that are not considered within appendix JS 10 and that would deliver an additional

150 affordable homes

So my view is that over the next five years. There's a total affordable housing supply of

495 dwellings

equivalent to 99

homes per annum and if we were to remove the

prevailing rate of right to buy is that would reduce that down to 95 affordable

homes per annum. So no real step change in delivery of affordable homes compared

to the last three years which we know is a government objective and when measured

against the requirement in the LHNA from 2020 there would be an expanded

short for which I do set out in my evidence at figure 7 .1 on page 40.

So in terms of remediating the issue, have you seen any particular factors which indicate

the remediation of affordable housing is imminent or is it a continuing problem?

That's very much a continuing problem as I've set out orally and within my evidence at paragraph

7 .20 there doesn't appear to be a step change in the delivery of affordable housing and

the shortfall of 96 homes identified to date will grow to 246 homes at the end of the five

year period in 2028 and 29.

Thank you.

You set out in section 8, paragraph 8 .2 to 8 .12, the housing register is made for this.

Yes.

How do people currently register as being in need of accommodation?

So, Secretary, can you remember to use your microphone?

Seat 28 - 2:45:43

I thought I had, sorry.

I think I've probably turned it off with my laptop.

Apologies.

So I was asking about the housing register that you discuss in section 8. Mr. Stacy. Yes

so the housing register is one of the indicators in addition to

Past delivery and future delivery as to the need and the scale of the affordable housing issue

The housing register currently stands at one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine households

Which was a 23 percent increase from the previous year where it stood at one thousand four hundred and eleven

So as we heard in opening that indicator is getting worse.

Thank you.

Comparatively small authority, how do you characterise that level of persons on a housing register?

Again, whilst it is a small authority, I think that the nature of the change, 23 % increase,

implies a significant impact on the ability of households to find suitable accommodation

without the need for being on the council housing register.

So yes, not an insignificant number of households in the context of this authority.

Let's drill down a little bit in relation to that.

Paragraph 8 .18 of your evidence, you identify how many on that current register, the 1 ,782,

have expressed the preference for Morton in Marsh.

How many are there?

Yes, so there are 312 households from that figure who have identified Morton in Marsh

as an area of specific preference.

That represents about 18 % of the register.

Is that figure in excess of or less than or the same as the number that will be delivered by this development?

So this development will deliver 78 affordable homes so we can see that there are a considerable number of

households that are

seeking accommodation so as we know from

figure

8 .3 of my evidence on page 46

the number of bids per property far exceeds the number of properties available.

So whilst we will have a positive impact on the local availability of affordable homes,

there will still be people who sadly will not have their needs met locally.

So this is not just people in the district,

these people in the district that would prefer to be in Moreton and Marsh for whatever reasons,

Familial work whatever and the number of persons bidding for each property

You intimate are between 40 to 108 bids per property

What if anything does that tell you about?

the acuteness or the lack of acuteness in terms of supply of affordable housing

well, there's two factors here not only is the

number of social lettings decreased from

92 down to to 37 homes. So a limited stock of properties becoming available

in the most recent

monitoring period but also those bids far exceed

The number so that's an average number so for each property that is housed

There's there's a significant number that are not having their needs met

so that gives the level of

need both a district level and a town level.

Let's just deal with the issues of waiting times.

You tell us at your 8 .13 through to 8 .17 what average waiting times are.

So for those who are on this register, how long do they have to wait in this district?

Yes, so the average waiting times for a one and two bedroom property is one year and seven months.

It increases to two years and one month for a three bedroom property.

and for a four bedroom property,

it's the longest waiting time.

Average waiting times is 911 days,

which is the equivalent of two years and six months.

Thank you.

Let's deal with the most acute level of that.

Temporary accommodation and those who are homeless,

again, points you deal with later on

in section eight of your evidence.

Are there persons who are currently housed

in temporary accommodation in this district?

Yes, there's two elements to this as well.

There's the households housed within the district, but there's also a number that are housed outside of the district

certainly

Two sets of figures here before you so the MA CLG figures indicate that there were 30 households

housed in temporary accommodation

Whereas the freedom of information request asking the same

Question, which is my appendix JS to identify that there were 35 households

housed in temporary accommodation.

Of those, 17 were housed outside of the district.

And obviously that has implications

in terms of those households being away

from support networks, schools, families, jobs, et cetera.

So not insignificant consequences

in respect of a lack of accommodation

to house those people that are right at the sharp end

of need in temporary accommodation.

And is there a homelessness issue as well?

Yes, similarly, figures from MHCLG indicate

that there were 143 households in need of a prevention duty

with a further 93 households in need of a relief duty.

And the council recognises this

through a number of corporate documents

that they have a requirement to try

and house these people as best they can.

Thank you. Put this all into context. Affordability ratios. So yeah the

affordability ratios are key again they're recognised by by council leaders

in terms of some of the wording that's been identified in my appendix

appendices JS 8 and 9 talking about the price of houses being beyond the reach

of many locals and similarly there being a clear affordability crisis in this district.

Just to put those two contexts, those two phrases into context, the affordability ratio

stands at, median affordability ratio stands at 13 .84 times income. That's 80 % higher than

the national average and 63 % above the southwest median average as well. So locally the affordability

crisis is clear and acute in my view. The affordability ratio has that compared

here to the rest of the country. Yes, so it's 63, sorry, it's 80 % higher than

England in the Cotswolds. It's time to order your drinks, we're about to close

the bar. House prices, how are those locally? Yes, so house prices again is an element that

signifies whether there is a particular problem and those are set out in paragraphs 8 .46 through

to 8 .48 and my figure 8 .6 looks at median house prices.

You can see from that figure on page 52

that the Cotswolds house price

and the local median super output area,

so the MSOA, which is the much narrower band

of geographical area that the country split up into.

There it far outstrips the South West and England house prices and we can see that that

has risen over time as well.

And there's a similar picture with the lower quartile house prices in figure 8 .7 on page

53 of the evidence where again Cotswolds and the localised data far outstrips the South

West and England figure.

and just to draw that into identifying the importance of affordable housing in

a high -value area the appeal decision that I've referenced at eight point five

three of my evidence I'm not sure it's a core document but the last grouping this

is the Malmsbury decision there the inspector in effect considered that the

fact that the area was a high value area didn't diminish the fact that affordable housing

was important and in paragraph 78 of that appeal decision the inspector said in fact

the fact that Malmsbury is a relatively high value area for housing adds more weight to

the need for affordable housing products by which I mean I think that was referring to

balancing the tenure and providing opportunities for people that can't afford an open market

house a better opportunity to have a house in a high value area and I think

parallels could certainly be drawn with with Morton in that context. And you also

then go on in the same section of your evidence to note that the private rental

market doesn't save the position locally given the private rents are also on a

particularly high level in relation to the range. Yeah absolutely again

And then similarly, increases in private rental market

have also considered the impact of inflation

using an inflation calculator.

And there we can see that whilst increasing the price now

is greater than what an inflation expectation increase would have been,

it's about 28 pounds per month higher than what it would have been otherwise.

So again that indicates localised pressure on rents in my opinion.

Finally, weighting and planning balance.

Court document 4 .2 .10, the officer's report tells us that substantial weight should be

afforded to the provision of affordable housing in this case.

That's a position I think you agree with, is that right?

Yes, I think the difficulty I have is understanding how the officer in that case and also the

appeal statement at the local planning authorities appeal statement at 6 .6 also

signifies substantial weight but it's it's pretty meaningless without some

context of facts and figures that I've presented. So bringing all that together

both in terms of the general provision position in terms of supply of

affordable against the identified need identifying the local housing register

identifying the 312 people currently who have expressed themselves to be in need

looking to relocate in Morton. How should the inspector treat the delivery of 78

affordable homes on this site in terms of the real benefits to real people? Yeah

absolutely the need for affordable housing is clear there's an ongoing

pressing need that need is not going to be met through the supply that we've

identified in the council's five -year housing land supply statement and on

that basis there is a clear and pressing need for affordable housing now seeking

to delay that through some idea of master planning phasing or local plan

advancement or waiting for the local plan to advance in my opinion doesn't

help those households that clearly need it now and that's the reason why this

site needs to come forward as quickly as possible. You said pressing need if the

inspector was looking for an adjective from you about the level of that need

what would what adjective should be applied? In terms of the pressing need I

would say it's immediate and acute. Thank you very much Mr. Stacey. Thank you sir.

The Mars position was on my own, so I know it.

One I didn't present evidence of.

To what extent do you think the planning system is a contributor to these

affordability indicators?

because Morton in Marsh is a historic town in the heart of the Cotswolds.

So it's perhaps unsurprising that it's also a quite expensive place to live.

Yes, I think in some of those local house price indicators,

the fact that Morton in Marsh matches the rest of the Colts,

Colswalds, tends to tell me that it's not a Morton problem

per se, it's more of a district concern.

So I think the planning system that hasn't achieved

a sufficient number of homes with a inadequate five -year supply position

clearly tells us that there are

problems in delivering housing or sufficient quantities of housing here

and obviously this site has the ability to to readdress that. The 78 homes would be about a third of the

identified shortfall that I think will occur.

over the next five years.

Can I just make a comment there about the point you made

that the master planning and local plan doesn't help people in immediate need?

And I get that.

But from my statement this morning,

what I'm saying is that anybody who comes to live in Moreton in Marsh

It doesn't matter whether they are in affordable housing or market housing, they deserve to

be placed in a home that reflects the landscape and the setting of the place.

That's the point we are making there.

I do get your point about immediate need.

I think that obviously developers have got ways to make their plans exciting and help

us to design places to live in.

And so I sort of jumped at your point about immediate and acute.

But I still make the point that we need well -designed homes in good spaces.

Thank you.

So I presume, Mr Stacey, you would like to comment on that?

Yes, two -fold.

I mean, I am glad that you do acknowledge that there is a need for affordable housing,

because I think I heard that from you this morning and the second point about

well -designed houses and places we're going to hear from from our next

business that will deal with impact on the landscape.

Can I just also say that there are statistics but we don't know how many of those outside the

district have actually said they would like to come to Moreton in Marsh and

the 312 that put preferences, it's probably that they have said Morton

Marsh amongst other places they would prefer to go to. The difficulty we have, and we've had

discussions with various people in the past, about the understanding of rural

poverty. The position of Morton in Marsh is quite unique being where it is. Being

on the very northern tip of the county, we have the four shire stoneware, 374,

there were four counties and something like 20 parishes all matched to one

single point on the edge of County. The people in Morton traditionally wish to go to the

surrounding areas. They visit Evesham, Chipping Norton, Stratton and Stratford, all in three

different authorities. They are not Simon Sester centric, they are not Chapman centric.

The other issue is, and it will be reflected also with the post 16 transport, County Council

The school is not obliged anymore to go assist in post 16 transport.

There is no access to long -term post 16 education if you live in Mora.

There are not the employment sites that everybody seems to believe that there are.

It is very difficult to get that sort of employment and it is certainly difficult to get places in post 16 transport.

The catchment school is Chipping Gandon.

There is transport for that and that is what 106 money is being asked to continue.

I hesitate to interrupt, but this is my affordable housing witness.

I'm not sure there's a question coming.

It's the issue that the people that come to look for that, if they come, the people I would argue with those preferences are not necessarily the same people that I think you think they are.

I think they have put preferences for Moreton as well as other places, but they would rather be living in places like San ancestor where they have quick and easy access to an awful lot more facilities than they do in Moreton.

I haven't reviewed the housing allocations policy here specifically for this case but

I've done other cases in the Cotswolds it's a choice based letting system. The specific

question in the Freedom of Information request was the total number of households on the

outside of the district it is specific to those 1362 on the register so in that

respect I disagree with the comments that they're going to be pulling people

in they are a preference for people it's an indication it's a strong indication

when you link with the number of bids per properties that there will be a sufficient

pool of people more than 78 to ensure that each of these houses will be occupied by someone

that meets the council's qualification criteria and that would be the comfort.

You know it's the council that allocate the houses so they will be directed to those people

that meet the council's qualification criteria.

So I don't think we need to be worrying about importing people from other cities in the

country.

It's not a case of that.

Okay, thank you.

I'd say that's also a misunderstanding of the social cohesion problems that you have

when people do move into areas with these sort of difficulties and they are not from

the area.

Okay, thank you.

Well, they will all be from Cotswolds.

They're not from other areas.

The Cotswolds is a large place.

Well, it's authority.

Seat 32 - 3:05:44

We will take questions.

I will take Mr Jackson's qualifications as read.

They are at page one of his proof of evidence.

Are you Timothy Richard Jackson?

I am.

Thank you very much. You give landscape evidence in this particular case. Is that right? That's correct. Thank you very much indeed

Can you tell us at the very outset and this is really from?

Both figure four of the landscape visual assessment and page six of your evidence what the landscape context is of the site

Okay, so in terms of the general landscape context and this is considering I suppose the site and the broader landscape around Morton in marsh

And I think there's already been reference today,

sort of 80 % of that landscape is designated

as the Cotswolds.

And then we've also got some sizeable landscape areas

that are subject to the Morton -in -Marsh

special landscape area.

So let's have a look at your figure four, page six.

That doesn't have the key on it,

so just tell me broadly speaking,

what I'm looking at there.

So if, I don't know, sir,

are you looking at my proof of evidence

or proof of evidence so in terms of looking at that plan I think you can see

where the site sits and you can on the eastern side of Mortyn in Marsh the sort

of green or the sort of heavier green colour to the west of the west of the

town is the Cotswolds National landscape effectively the A and B and then you can

see some slightly paler sort of hatched areas to the north northeast and south

southeast of Mortyn in Marsh which are the special lands areas so in terms of

the site itself you can see that that sits outside of both of well all of

those landscape areas and it's effectively only really that a sort of

a relatively narrow corridor that encompasses that the fire service

college that extends out eastwards from the town that is that is a part of an

undesignated landscape. Thank you. Now there's been a variety of different

published studies in relation to this particular site on this area including

the review of the special landscape area which I think is core document 10 .4.

That review to what extent did that consider whether to include or exclude

the site and that's perhaps by reference to your page 9. Yes so in terms of that

study I mean there were two principal studies landscape related in relation to

where the site and the Mortimer Marsh the special landscape area that

that review that was undertaken, that was undertaken well prior to the review the site

was outside the special landscape area. I think following the review it was still determined

that it should still sit outside that landscape area. There was a minor adjustment that moved

the boundary of that special landscape area to the eastern boundary of our site so it

moved it slightly further to the east from where it already was so there was obviously

conscious decision to maintain the exclusion of our site from the special

landscape area but that again that that review quite clearly sort of

demonstrated that it had been the site itself had been considered and it was

still felt that that shouldn't form part of the special landscape area. So let's

look at the site itself in that context how would you characterise the site? I

mean again if you've already seen the site sir I mean I think it's it's

relatively simple straightforward it's a sort of medium -sized arable field

no landscape features or planting of note really within the boundaries of the site.

There's a gentle fall from west to east to the sort of small water course or ditch on the eastern side of the site.

It's relatively well enclosed or contained by planting to the sort of north, the west and south,

slightly more open to the east, but within the, I suppose, the broader landscape,

it still has a sort of an enclosed sort of character to it. Any influence from

existing built form on the site? Yeah I mean I think in terms of yeah in terms

of existing built form and built development clearly we've got the

Cotswold sort of business village to the directly to the west of the site we have

the fire service college to the north London Road the a44 also immediately to

the north. We have a large residential property on the northeast corner of the site called

the hatchery. We have the sewage works, as I think has already been referenced today,

to the sort of southwest adjoining the site boundary to the southwest. And then there's

other relatively recent residential development to the southwest of the site as well. So there's

various sort of development influences around the site and they influence the site to varying

degrees. Thank you. Baseline assessment that's been undertaken, you were not the

author of the original assessment, you've had the opportunity to look at that

assessment. Any issues with that assessment? No issues with the assessment

I mean the practise that I worked for did undertake the LVA but it wasn't

myself personally. I think you know that was a robust approach and process that

was adopted following a Olivia 3 which I'm sure you're familiar with. Again

that was reviewed by landscape consultants for the District Council and

they again were in broad agreement that the actual approach was all

fine and was appropriate and they also agreed that in terms of the landscape

value susceptibility to change and sensitivity of the site in its immediate

context that that should be considered to be medium sort of sort of moderate

level of. And how would that compare to the areas around Walton that you've

already discussed that lie within the SLA or the NL? Yeah well generally you

would expect I mean landscape designations in terms of looking at

landscape sensitivity and value I mean generally your first port of call are

landscape designations they're not the be -all and end -all but you know your

first point of call in terms of considering sensitivity and value would

be your designations and they generally indicate that you're looking at landscapes of relatively

higher value, particularly sort of national landscapes where in the main you would expect

them to probably fulfil that sort of highest category. Special landscape areas again probably

high, possibly medium high. So I think in terms of where we sit within relative terms

to the surrounds, to Moreton and Marsh, we are obviously relatively lower than what you

would expect for the rest of the landscape surrounding the town.

Are we in valued landscape territory or ordinary landscape territory?

No, we're not we're not in valued landscape territory

I think that that was confirmed certainly the committee stage and I think also

Whether that's in the statements of common ground. I cannot recall now, but I don't think there's been any

Allegation that we that we should be considered to be either a valued landscape or part of a valued landscape

Visual baseline to what extent is there a wide or a more limited zone of theoretical visual influence?

Yeah, so in terms of the the theoretical

ZTV's theoretical visibility of the proposed development I mean that is

well enclosed and contained in within the landscape and visual appraisal

report. Figure six if you if you wish to reference it sir it shows on that that

figure that sort of zone of visual influence it is well contained by

largely by the surrounding woodland built development and other features

that are within the immediate vicinity of the site.

It stretches some degree to the east and to the southeast,

but in those directions there aren't many visual receptors

as such, so in terms of the number of visual receptors

and locations where you would potentially see the site,

it is limited.

You know, we're not talking about lots

of residential properties or lots of public rights of way

or areas of settlement that would have views

towards the proposed development. It is a it is a well enclosed and contained site

in those terms. Thank you let's move from the site as is to the site as will be.

The inspectors got the master plan within the pack of plans that were

presented also called up at 1 .2 .15. What proportion of the site is proposed to be

built on? Well with approximately half so again you know the terms of looking at

that the site as a whole, you know, the site boundary,

you know, the illustrative master plan

and even the development framework plan

show quite clearly that, you know,

approximately half of the site

is going to be for future green uses.

So in terms of biodiversity net gain,

general green infrastructure, new planting and habitats,

half of a site of this nature, in my experience, is notable.

I wouldn't say it's completely unusual,

but typically I'm more familiar with probably maybe a third of a site but

certainly if you're getting towards half a site and that is a substantial part of

a site particularly when that site is pretty limited value particularly in

terms of I suppose habitats and biodiversity and landscape you know if

it's an arable field we've got decent planting to the boundaries but we

haven't there's very little within it so in terms of what we can do with half of

that site and just in pure landscape planting planting terms we can do an

awful lot. So you know that is a good proportion of green space and not only that I think it's

been just in terms of how it's been considered we've obviously got a broad landscape buffer

to the east so in terms of that eastern edge we've got between approximately 75 and 90

metres. I mean it's encompassing the balancing, the attenuation feature but again we've got

a large area there for mixed habitats and not only an sort of aquatic habitats

or wetland habitats associated with the balancing feature but other new trees

native trees scrub and shrubs and then on the southern part of the site again

we're probably between I think about 20 and 40 metres in depth or again further

green green space open habitats and again also some public access in terms

of footpaths around the perimeter. Let's just have a quick look at that

Appendix C of your proof I think has got some cross sections through that eastern boundary

So that they direct east west and then south south

So north west to east to southeast

Yes

What what if anything do you invite the inspector to draw from the from that particular plan?

Well, I think sorry in terms of the cross sections. Yes. Yes in terms of appendix C in the cross sections

I mean, I think that just demonstrates that

You know the distance that we've got and the space that we've got in terms of landscape

measures. I think it shows firstly that we can provide a suitable edge landscape

treatment to that eastern side of the site where it does then go into or move

into the to the special landscape area and we can deal with that appropriately

in terms of providing a well -filtered edge with new native trees and shrubs

and the like so we haven't got the development tight to the special

landscape area or exposed particularly I think obviously that the trees will take

a bit of time to grow but we've got a suitable design approach a lot of green

space and I think it just shows that the you know as a whole you know that the

appeal scheme you know it does factor in and it is it's a it's a scheme that

takes due account of the landscape and has responded appropriately to that

landscape. And then the next appendix shows the proposed planting which is

around the hatchery which is the existing house on the northeast corner of the site itself.

Firstly why has there been a planting plan that's been put in in relation to this and has any of the

planting already gone in? Well I think why it's gone in is because I think we recognise that

there was this large residential property adjoining the north directly adjoining the

northeast corner of the site that was really relatively open to the site. I mean unlike other

Surrounding visual receptors generally views to the site have probably heavily filtered or screened or certainly more distant

I think we were mindful that we've got a property here

That was probably going to be the most directly affected by the development, and I think probably what what is

In some respects a little bit unusual, but again, I mean to the to the credit of Blores

You know they've made we made contact with the residents of that property

There's been dialogue and discussions over a period of time to look at a solution that

would suitably mitigate and reduce the level of effects that would arise for views particularly

from that property.

And I think it's to their credit or to the Lord's credit that this scheme, which has

been effectively agreed by the residents of the adjacent property, has been designed and

has been implemented.

So, I mean, the inspector will see tomorrow that this scheme is there on the ground.

And I think that's, you know, I think that's to the great credit of the, I think the developer

is again, it's relatively unusual in the sort of schemes that I've been familiar with to

have something like that in place and agreed at this stage.

Thank you.

Effects then, landscape effects, first of all, any effect upon the Cotswolds national

landscape or the designated landscape in your judgement? No, no effects and I think

again that's been agreed as in the statement of Common Ground that we've

got no effects upon the Cotswolds landscape. Thank you. In terms of

landscape effects anything significantly beyond the appeal site itself? I think

very limited really beyond the appeal site itself I think again if you I think

the LVA is very fair reasonable and robust in terms of its assessment and I

I think the residual landscape effects that that states,

of which I agree, is that the effects will be

sort of minus and moderate adverse

upon the site in its immediate context,

which again, for a scheme of this nature,

is pretty good, given when you're dealing

with a greenfield site,

albeit just a relatively simple arable field.

So again, I think I'd characterise it

as relatively limited and localised.

I mean, clearly there will be some effect.

But it is given that we're in the undesignated landscape on the less sensitive sort of side and edge of Morton

We've got 50 % of the site. That's obviously going to provide some landscape benefits. I

think again that that is a

relatively

low or limited

Level of landscape effects and I think that it probably also just to add that I think the the landscape consultants that are acting for

the district council during the

application process I think they recognised that the effects would also

reduce over time with the landscape measures and proposals that were put

into place. Thank you. Visual effects you've produced at Appendix Z I don't ask you

to turn the books the inspectors no doubt already looked at them a variety

of wire lines which assess the effects of the proposed development bring it all

together how would you characterise the visual effects from public vantage

points from nil localised up to gross severe however you want.

Again they're nearly all at the sort of lower end or minor level of effect I

mean the inspector has got the wire lines I mean just to say sir that the

wire lines have all been produced in accordance with the relevant guidelines

they're robust in terms of their accuracy. You'll see yourself on site

tomorrow sir I think we've all of the viewpoints that we've that I've got

included with my evidence at Appendix C. They're all within on that sort of route

for the site site as itinerary. I would say that we've obviously modelled that

the built development is shown within all those views and we've also shown

the effects the residual longer -term effects of the planting and I think you

can see from nearly all of those views that yes you're going to have some views

towards the higher parts of the buildings the roofs of the buildings

both at day one and even some longer term.

But again, I think putting that into context

and considering that where those views are taken from,

they're probably the clearest views

you can find towards the scheme.

Again, it's a scheme that is visually contained and closed

and that the effects will be limited.

And certainly the effects upon the route

into Moreton Marsh, into the town,

from the east along London Road.

again I think as was acknowledged by the District Council's landscape consultant

and already there's a high degree of visual screening and filtering as you

come along that road and you'll see that and where you do get views you've got

the you know the odd gateway view but that's that's it really and I think the

way the developments been designed and the landscape proposals will provide a

suitable sort of framework and philtre for this scheme. Thank you your proof

picks up policy EM1 and EN4 which Mr Wakefield will slot into his overall

planning balance. Overall mindful of this this location mindful of the proposed

mitigation, mindful of the scheme what's your overall judgement Mr Jackson? Well I

think overall as I characterise it will result in sort of limited localised

landscape and visual effects and it will also include some valuable sort of

benefits derived from the 50 % of the site as green space.

Thank you. Would you wait there please? Thank you, sir.

Councillor, you want to toss a question?

I just wanted to ask for confirmation that despite the wonderful protection of the large house to the east,

can I just confirm that is the owner of the site that's selling it for housing?

Yes?

I didn't hear the question, sorry.

Just wanted confirmation is that their property owned by the owner of the land that selling the site for development I?

Believe is can I can I defer that to mr.. Wakefield?

Seat 41 - 3:24:35

It's our understanding it's not

Seat 28 - 3:24:38

Wait for the taking structure before he gives evidence either way that's not relevant to consideration of landscape effect

Okay

Seat 20 - 3:24:46

Seat 32 - 3:24:46

Have you considered the work done on London Road at all?

Yes, I do cover that in my evidence somewhere, sir,

but I haven't got the paragraph reference to hand.

Seat 28 - 3:25:00

But yes, I have considered that we've looked at the

sort of highway related works and the impacts

upon the vegetation that that would have in terms of

you know, losing sort of elements of verge, et cetera.

So that has been considered, but I would say again,

and that is very minor in my view.

Okay, thank you.

I was looking at the route,

Seat 20 - 3:25:30

so I think with landscape,

even when it's in dispute, really,

there's a lot of it about what I think

when I walk around and look.

So I'm looking here,

the route is to go around the site itself

obviously and then you mentioned also going up a footpath at one of these key

views yes to viewpoint A and then viewpoint E later on and viewpoint D and C

okay I think the one that I can think of sir that probably isn't clearly shown on

there but it's referenced in the text I've got a feeling that the reference

point F which is which is it's sort of south it'd be sort of south -southwest of

the site so I think that they're that that's where there's probably on that

plan it's not shown but there is new development recent residential

development they're called the back house development and the public right

of it you can park in that development and then the public footpath extends to

the south of the site from that development okay and I think that's one

where there is at least we've got one of the viewpoints of wire lines from there

And I think that's the one you it refers to it in the key, but probably not on the plan

It doesn't make it crystal clear, but I think that's worth walking back and forth

Okay, thank you

Anything from anybody else

Seat 28 - 3:26:50

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much

Seat 20 - 3:26:52

For your evidence. Mr. Jackson

Thank you, sir. What if you just mind if mr. Wakefield just cheques the position in relation to the owner. Mm -mmm

Thank You mr. Jackson

I think if that's acceptable, Mr. Wakefield, just stay where he is.

Seat 32 - 3:27:27

Mr. Wakefield, you are Guy Wakefield and your credentials are set out at page three of your

proof of evidence.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

That's a relief.

Can I ask you then please just to pick up a few points. Firstly principle of development.

In terms of the current development plan the site lies beyond the settlement boundary in

the open countryside is that right?

That's correct.

Is that settlement boundary and that policy approach an up to date or out of date approach?

I believe that to be out of date on the basis that the housing numbers prescribed in the

adopted local plan have now been superseded by the latest standard method figures provided

by central government and for that reason the housing requirement figure in DS1 and

the housing numbers therefore that prescribe the settlement boundaries are out of date

and have now been superseded by the latest figures by central government as I said.

Thank you. In terms of the five -year land supply position 1 .8 on the council's case, 1 .4 on Mr. Pycroft's. Either way how would you characterise that shortfall?

I would characterise that as being a very significant shortfall.

Thank you. In terms of bringing the settlement boundaries up to date and helping to resolve

that significant shortfall, how imminent is the emerging local plan?

I believe that's still to be some way off. In my evidence I've suggested that the earliest

the emerging local plan would be adopted would be early 2028.

Thank you. We note that the council in its reasons for refusal, or you note rather, don't

rely upon policies DS1 and DS4, which would be the settlement boundary policies. In your

view, in the light of all of what you've just said, to what extent is the policy breach

given in your judgement substantial, limited or some other weight?

I say limited weight at best.

Indeed, to add to the point you have already made, there is no short or medium term solution

being suggested by the council to resolve the very acute shortfall in the five -year

housing land supply.

So as I said before, the earliest this situation or dire situation will be rectified would

be with the adoption of the local plan in 2028. Presumption in favour of sustainable

development engaged or not engaged? It's engaged. Any of the footnotes would disengage the presumption?

No. And therefore the intuitive planning balance does apply. Thank you. I'll come back to what's

your view in relation to the out turn of that exercise at the end. Policy DS1 does seek

to direct most of the District's growth towards the principal settlements, does that include

Moreton? It does. Is that approach out of date? No, that's not. And Q Policy S18, which

is the specific policy for Moreton, tells us that it's a main service area for the North

Cotswolds and it's one of the most accessible settlements in the District. Is that still

up to date or is that out of date? That is up to date. Bringing those two points together

to what extent do you consider the authority are correct in terms of where they think that

growth should be directed in their emerging plan?

I believe they are correct to direct growth towards Alton in Marsh and I believe that

because of the heavily constrained nature of the district that is why as per table 3

of the Reg 18 plan on page 24 they are seeking to direct a significant amount of growth towards

to Moreton which for the period up to 2043 they are suggesting somewhere in the

region of 1 ,710 new homes. Now we know from the council's opening, the council's position is that

they aren't discounting the prospect of this site being allocated to candidate

sites, it's still a live candidate site. How good a candidate is it in your view?

I believe it to be a very very good candidate site. What did the Reg 18

version of the plan say? Indeed the reg 18 version of the plan as you will see on

page 29 I think it is of the reg 18 plan actually seeks to locate growth over

on the appeal site. Evidence has been provided by RAPOR in terms of

sustainability credentials of the site and the future sustainability

credentials and how they could be improved. Just give us a broad overview of

your judgments about the accessibility of the site in the light of those

measures? Yes, I think as the highway statement of Common Ground sets out and

therefore the highway authority signing up to the idea that the site is a sustainable one, on paragraph 2 .7 of the highway statement of Common Ground page 5, it identifies a number of sites that have been granted permission in the past and the appeal site by this site is comparable to those sites, therefore further supporting the fact that it is

sustainable. It's within walking, cycling distance of the town centre, the railway station,

which as you noted in the opening is only one of two across the whole of the district.

And overall I believe it to be a very, very sustainable site.

So let's take an example. If I lived in the centre of the site and wish to cycle in future

to the railway station and travel further afield, is that something I could do easily

or would that be a problem? That is something I believe you could do easily.

Indeed if you were to do that you would be further supported or assisted by the

active travel measures that the appellant is proposing to put forward as

part of this appeal. Why? To improve the sustainability, to improve the

accessibility, to make it even safer for both proposed residents of the appeal

site and existing residents to make that journey. And when I get to the railway

station is there somewhere I can securely park my bike? There is, we have

visited the railway station in DED there is a safe secure weatherproof facility

for somebody to actually park their bike and then get on the train. Thank you. We

know that EV and hybrid vehicles are a sustainable mode of transport, is the

railway station somewhere you could travel to in your sustainable car? It is

Thank you. Have you walked from the town centre to the appeal site?

I have.

Is it a difficult walk or how would you characterise it?

No I don't believe it is a difficult walk. It's slightly undulated in places but I

emphasise the word slightly undulating. It is perfectly reasonable for the vast

majority of people to travel from the town centre to the site by foot.

And if I worked in the current employment sites, the west of the site, how easy or difficult

would it be in terms of travelling between the appeal site and that location to go to

my place of work?

Again, very easy to make that journey.

Indeed the access improvements that are set out on page, sorry, paragraph 2 .10, page 6

of the Highway Statement of Common Ground,

explain how that journey would be improved

through the appeal scheme.

So again, I say that's a very easy and convenient journey

for somebody to undertake.

Thank you.

Now we know that the original first reason for refusal

suggested that there was a disproportionate increase

in development as a result of the proposed development.

Is there any particular feature that has been identified

to you of the current level of infrastructure in the town, schools or anything of that nature,

which will be disproportionately adversely affected by the appeal proposals and not mitigated

by any proposed 106 obligation?

No, none. And indeed there's nothing from any of the statutory consultees that would

support that either. So in all respects there's no evidence before the inspector to suggest

that the existing infrastructure within the town, adjacent to the town, cannot accommodate

this development.

A small point before I turn to delivery. Have you taken instructions about whether the owner

of the hatchery is the same person that is selling Bloor the land as alleged by the Councillor?

I have indeed and it's not the same person.

What difference would it make even if it had been?

It wouldn't make any difference as the Inspector suggested himself.

Delivery, the site is controlled by Bloor Homes, are they a developer?

They are, they are a very highly reputable developer, as I set out on paragraph 6 .8 of my proof of evidence.

They are a five star house builder and they also have a very good track record of delivering new homes across the district,

having delivered somewhere in the region 800 new homes since 2006.

What's the anticipation in terms of delivery in the event that the appeal is allowed?

How long will it take to bring forward the 195?

All homes would be delivered within five years from the grant of outline planning permission

as I set out again on page 19 and 20 of my proof of evidence.

Thank you. Let's just go through a variety of different factors in terms of adverse

effects first of all then beneficial effects. You've told me conflict with DS4 and DS1,

so development outside of existing boundaries and conflicts with the existing development

plan, limited weight. Air quality effects, what's the position as you understand it?

The ability of Morton and Marsh to accommodate additional developments along with the cumulative

effect of other forms of development that have already been consented and built.

I say there's no adverse impact there whatsoever.

Visual and landscape effects?

Limited.

Let's turn from that to beneficial effects.

Delivery of housing to contribute towards the deficit

of the five year land supply?

I give that substantial weight and indeed support

for that can be found in the Statement of Common Ground,

the third bullet point on page 12.

Delivery of affordable housing,

is that a separate weighting item?

It is.

Okay, separate weighting item.

what weight did you ascribe to the delivery of 78 affordable units on the

scheme if it's built out to 195? Again I give that substantial weight again

support agreement with the council again page 12 of the statement of common ground

third bullet point and also defer to Mr. Stacey's evidence on that which I think

robustly sets out the urgency and the significance of a need a substantial

need for affordable housing within Moreton and the wider district.

Active travel highway improvements and bus improvements, your position?

I give that significant rate. I believe that the active travel measures proposed along

the A44 will, as I said before, make it safer and more convenient for both proposed residents

and existing residents, users of the business park, the sports ground, the cemetery, etc,

et cetera, to all undertake their journeys by foot or bike

in a more safe and convenient manner.

I also attach weight from the bus contribution, which,

if it weren't for that contribution,

Pullams, as per the statement of common ground,

I think it set out that without the contribution,

that service would be downgraded to a two hourly service,

whereas the contribution will help maintain it

as an hourly service.

And then finally, I suggest that the Morton Mobility Hub contribution, which again is set out in the highway statement of common ground, I think it's 50 ,000 pounds,

will provide the opportunity to make that facility safer and more convenient for users, particularly given that the levels of car parking there are considered to be inadequate as per paragraph 7 .21 .5 of the adopted local plan.

Let's just be clear, the Morton mobility hub to which the £50 ,000 is being identified,

that's the off -site?

Correct.

And exactly where -abouts is that?

The in, by the railway station.

Yeah.

There is also a proposal for a mobility hub, more localised mobility hub within the site,

what's that?

That is effectively a facility that Bloor Homes would like to provide as part of the

proposed development.

The various features of that are set out

in Jamie Mattocks' proof of evidence at page 20,

and paragraph 4 .29.

So that sets out what that facility would actually

entail if permission is granted, and therefore,

WEMBLOR would actually deliver that facility.

But it's a local facility to, again, encourage and make

convenient for people, residents and visitors to the site to undertake sustainable journeys

when residing there. Thank you. Next benefits heading, economic benefits. What's your position

on the economic benefits during construction and thereafter once the houses have been built?

Again overall I give that moderate weight. I set out in my proof of evidence that the

proposed development would generate somewhere in the region about 663 new jobs

for the construction as part of the construction phase with additional

apprentices being employed through the Bloor apprenticeship scheme that's

being set up by Bloor Homes and additional trainees as well and then

obviously goes without saying as with most residential schemes there will be

additional expenditure generated from the proposed residents that would spend

their monies within the town centre and other facilities around the edge of

centre to support the local shops and businesses that are located there at the moment.

Sustainable construction operation?

I give that limited weight on the basis that if you go to the energy statement, which is

core document 1 .1 .27, page 19, that sets out the proposed strategy being put forward, would

represent a 30 % energy demand reduction and would provide a carbon reduction of

approximately 5 % over current building rates. I'm going to come back to the

issue of Moreton House sustainable settlement itself. We'll come back to

that at the end. I do want to turn next to the issue of the safeguarding of the

highway route. We already touched upon this a little earlier on today. What is

And do you ascribe any benefit to that safeguarding? Yes, so I give that a negligible weight as a benefit

the root of that is

Set out on the parameter plan which has been provided to the inspector obviously

essentially during

discussions over the application

with the council and

In its preparation of the partial update which they've now abandoned

the council identified that to in order to facilitate the levels of growth that

were being considered at the time and as per the reg 18 plan that it's possible

that in order to accommodate that level of growth they might need to deliver

with the help of County etc a relief road that wraps around more city marsh

the the effectively the section shown on the parameter plan would be part of that

relief road and laws I have committed as per one of the conditions I think it's

the final condition to make an allowance for that should it be required at some

point in the future as and when the emerging local plan advances the

significance of that in terms of the benefit again is an agreed matter with

the state with the council in the statement of common ground on page 11

Thank you. We also heard earlier on today controlling surface water runoff towards the

even load flood basin in extreme events. There being a positive effect we heard from Mr Green

earlier on today. Do you ascribe any weighting to that?

Yes, I give that limited weight in the planning balance and noting that Mr Green earlier made

the point that in, as you said, extreme runoff events there would be a slowing down in the

rate of runoff, which would be to the benefit of those downstream. Making a note of the

figures he gave, there would be a reduction of 56 % at the 30 year storm and 68 % at the

100 year storm event.

And that's because one is tied to the current year in terms of surface water?

Correct.

It doesn't aggregate as one moves through the years?

That's correct.

And then finally, bringing forward development at Moreton in comparison to anywhere else

in the district. What thoughts do you have about that?

Well, I believe that is a benefit of the scheme. I give it limited weight in the planning balance

that I provide in the proof of evidence. The reason why I do that is because a number of

factors. First of all, this is a very heavily constrained rural district. Moreton in Marsh

is one of the most sustainable settlements, one of the largest principal settlements.

I think it's policy S18 identifies it as being the second most accessible

settlement within the district and given how constrained it is yet how

sustainable Moreton Marsh is, I believe it to be a benefit of the scheme and as I

said before I give that limited weight. Thanks, so bringing all that together help

me with this. You've told me that the tilted balance is engaged, so the question is whether

or not the adverse effects of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits. In those circumstances, what's your position as to whether they do

or don't? I don't believe they do. I believe on the contrary that the overall benefits

of the scheme significantly outweigh the adverse impacts that we've been through. And if the

The Inspector concludes in terms of the Section 38 .6 balance that there is conflict with the

Development Plan, the Adopted Development Plan, taken as a whole and then turns to the

flat balance. What's your position about whether material considerations do or don't outweigh

that conflict?

I believe that the material considerations would outweigh that conflict.

Is this a marginal case or a decisive case?

Not in my opinion. I believe that the overall merits of this scheme are very substantial.

the package of benefits are very substantial indeed and therefore those

material considerations as I said significantly outweigh the adverse

impacts it's not a margin at all. Thank you very much I wasn't expecting the end of

your evidence to be sounded by somebody beeping but there we are it's almost

serendipitous we couldn't have planned that thank you very much Mr. Wakefield

thank you sir. On the delivery what is your opinion on what we discussed this

morning about potential problems with the wastewater infrastructure and how that might

or might not affect delivery within five years?

I think if you turn to page 19 of my evidence, I set out and I refer to the 20 months period

that Mr Green gave as being the time period for the modelling design and reinforcement

Seat 29 - 3:47:56

works to be carried out to the treatment plant.

And then below that, I effectively align it with the periods of time required for submission

of reserve matters, the approval of the application, discharge of pre -commencement, when first

occupation would take place, and then when the delivery of homes would effectively take

place thereafter.

In summary, I believe that if you allow for all of that, all 195 homes could still be

delivered within the five -year time period, allowing for that 20 -month period for the

improvement works to the treatment plant.

Q. Mr Oates, am I allowed to ask the question?

My question is that given the 20 -month period clearly applies only to the network and that

As of since the 18th, between the 18th of February and now,

at some point, Thames Water have dropped completely,

almost globally across their website,

targets for achieving upgrade

on a vast number of sewage treatment works

that were previously on there at the 18th of February.

If I get sent to you via the inspector,

that the likelihood is that Thames Water

will not be delivering significant

and legally binding upgrades

to sewage treatment works at Moreton

any time between 2030, now and 2030, which is the key thing.

It's not the 20 months.

20 months is just a dendritic network, the local network.

If you put that five -year period into your plan,

into your assessment, and I know you say most houses would

be delivered in five years, do you change the opinion

of your deliverability?

Well, under the current draught conditions, et cetera,

Bloor Homes would still be able to build and make available, without occupation, they would

still be able to build all 195 houses within the time period.

So effectively the year then from 2030 to 2031 would be the period in which they would

then have to be able to sell those homes and people would be able to occupy them.

So clearly if that time period did apply, that might slow down the rate of sales.

It wouldn't slow down the actual rate of delivery of those homes per sale.

Yeah, I understand that.

I could build 195 houses today with permission anywhere where there is no sewage work that's

going to be upgraded.

But the reality is that at the moment there is no date that Thames Water will deliver.

That is the problem.

and I understand your statement about the planning condition and we obviously talk about that in a minute,

but it's just that 20 months that people keep referring to is a fallacy, it is just the network, it is not the service treatment works.

We have to get that clear in our minds, all of us.

Okay, thank you. No, that was made clear this morning.

Yes, Councillor Viviani?

Can I just pick up a point and we may have to take it outside. As a park landowner on

the transport hub site, nobody has actually come and spoken to us about that or GWR as

far as I'm aware. If you could let me know if you've spoken to GWR about your contribution.

We really don't understand quite about the position of Gloucestershire County Council

on this at all. So it is a question I'd love to ask you and I've flagged it now

because obviously it's open and it's in the public domain.

We could probably come back to Section 106.

Yes, that would be great.

We'd also want confirmation how it's a 106 issue.

Well, that will come out when it comes to 106.

We can talk about it then. Okay, thank you.

Do you think there's a danger of, in terms of that benefit of developing at Moreton as

opposed to elsewhere in the district, is there any danger if I were to do so in double county

benefits?

In terms of, for example, if I were to consider that accessibility as a site helped add weight

to the proposal, would I be considering it again, thinking that tournament more to be

marked as a competitor somewhere else is a benefit in your opinion?

I think there are different points there. I think the first point, and therefore the

The first benefit that was referred to relevant to transport slash accessibility was is the

site accessible to Morton's existing facilities?

And what is being done to mitigate the impacts and does that then have any indirect impacts

or benefits to existing residents?

So I think the first point is more in terms of the access to the town centre and Morton's

existing facilities.

The second benefit is more relevant to the wider district and where growth is actually going to be located across the wider district.

And as I said before, given how heavily constrained this district is, 80 % national landscape,

the Breg 18 plan as you will see on that table I referred you to, table 3 I think it was,

That is working extremely hard to locate development outside the national landscape in locations

that are quite rural, such as Driftfield.

It is working extremely hard.

For that reason, I say that Morton is a prime candidate for growth.

Unfortunately, for some of the local residents that are here today, it is a prime candidate

because approximately half the settlement is outside the national landscape.

It is very accessible, relatively speaking, for the rest of the rural district and therefore

I say that is a separate benefit.

Even if so, you were to disagree and discount it from my list of benefits.

It doesn't change the overall conclusions that Mr Tucker took me to at the end in terms

of whether or not on balance the material considerations as a whole still outweigh the

the conflicts or the adverse impacts that I was referred to or that I referred to myself,

I still believe that those significantly outweigh the adverse impacts, even if you were to ignore

that benefit.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I think that's everything, thank you.

Thanks, everything, thank you.

I want a re -examination, but just really to help try and dissuade Councillor Viviani taking

my witness outside. There is some information that's been provided in the

SIL compliance statement that's been provided by Gloucestershire which says

£50 ,000 to provide ancillary facilities for walkers and cyclists and the

contribution towards parking spaces that might be used by residents of the

development. So it appears to be ancillary facilities for walkers and

cyclists and also contributing towards parking spaces. It says the precise

quantification of that so that's all the information we have. Okay thank you.

Seat 20 - 3:55:41

Okay next thing that's everything Mr Wakefield. Okay thank you. Perhaps if we have a

short break and then come back and I was thinking we could deal with section 106

the conditions as they relate to the wastewater only and any confirmation of

anything else to add to the site visit from anybody and then we'll deal with

the rest of the conditions tomorrow morning and if there's any

closings we can deal with that tomorrow as well. Okay so if we break up now come

back at four is that okay? The inquiry is adjourned. Okay so should we turn to the

Seat 20 - 3:56:30

106s. So can I introduce you to the inquiry that the woman has emerged from

Seat 20 - 3:56:39

the cupboard. Miss Cartlidge -Taylor from Gowans. Thank you. So let's start with the

to Gloucestershire County Council one.

Firstly, I can't seem to find anywhere on my documentation

the still compliant statement.

It could just be that it hasn't made its way through to me.

There's been an internal error of pins, perhaps.

Is it on the website?

I just can't find it.

I sent one through, we did send one through, didn't we?

I did one for CDC but just outlining the consulty responses and the requests in relation to

the details that have been received during the course of the application. I believe the

County Council and the apparent solicitor have been involved in separate agreements

on their section 106 so until today I haven't seen the content of that and I think some

of the financial contribution amounts have changed from what was originally proposed.

In which case I misspoke before the break so the CIL compliance statement

that I was reading from is addressed good afternoon Robert, kind regards

Pauline and then is titled Cotswold District Council but it does deal with

the financial elements. I covered both based on the information submitted with

the planning application in terms of consultee requests and that's why the

highway contributions in that I think are slightly different from what we've

up with because there's been negotiation subsequent to them. Understood. That probably

means you don't have one from the county, sir. So I have to say my assumption have

been that this is embodied both. Which is certainly something we can request from

the county. Do I need do I need it? I'm not taking issue with any of the

the figures we accept that all are necessary in that regard I note what's

being said by the town council about wanting a bit more information and we

can certainly ask the county behind the scenes that because the because the we

do have that line of communication but I suspect you don't need that for the

determination because I'm sure the town council are not saying Bloor homes

please don't give the public some money. That wouldn't be politically great.

We would obviously like a UU discussion with you as opposed to S106 if we can.

Well I mean now is the time. Well shall we look at each contribution individually

as I go through it and that might flesh out and give me talk about in more

detail. So looking at the County Council, I was going to have to go through each page

separately to make sure I don't have to sit on my own notes.

Okay, I'll come back to that.

Yes, 22 .2 page 34.

So I have a point slightly earlier than that if I may.

Which is bottom of page 22 onto page 23.

you'll see at the very bottom of page 22 is the headline blue pencil clause.

This is a blue pencil clause which is triggered were you to conclude that any of the obligations

are not still compliant.

Sometimes one has the situation where they are only triggered in the event that you find

them to be still compliant.

So if you're completely silent, the conclusion is those monies are payable.

I just raised that as a matter of logistics for when you're drafting your decision, will

to allow the appeal. Also just to add on that there is a there's the usual

blue pencil in terms of obligations as a whole there is also one which accounts

for the financial contributions if there are any that are at level which you

don't think are appropriate that allow you to amend those as well. Okay thank you.

Okay, so 22 .2 page 34. How is that figure being calculated? 6380.

So that would have to be a question that I'd request from the county council. It's a figure

that has been agreed by my client, but the calculation would be one for those. I can

obviously raise that with the system.

Okay please can you do so.

And then moving on to the actual, the specific payments.

The payment towards the facilities related to the transport hub.

Can you just take me through that a little bit more?

I'm just trying to make sure that I'm clear in my mind as to how that directly relates

to the impact of the development rather than just a more general transport hub.

Sorry, is this the Transport Infrastructure Contribution or the Transportation Contribution?

This is Highways Contribution, top of page 40 and bottom of page 39.

It is more of a planning question rather than a legal question.

It is this one, so the home is contribution here that is payable for the transport hub.

So in the County Council's consultation response, it doesn't break down the requirement as to

how that money is actually going to be spent.

So I think again we'd have to take that away and come back to you with a sort of a reason.

All it says, and I can read it to you, it just says connexions to the Morton Transport

Hub, connexions to the station enhanced by the proposed footway, cycleway, making access

to the rail network easier and safer without need to use the private car.

A £50 ,000 contribution to the Morton Transport Hub has been agreed, which would help to contribute

to facilities that would be used by residents of the site,

such as ancillary walking and cycling facilities

and parking spaces.

I mean, the general principle seems very sensible.

I don't have any issue with it.

It's a sort of understanding

how that number's been arrived at.

Yeah, there's no further breakdown with that, sir.

Can we just ask if we understand

that was agreed with who?

With Bloor Homes.

On the county.

From the county to Bloor Homes.

Okay. I think the question for us is, obviously, you know, we're not arguing the

toss about the amount, we simply say we need clarification here because the

Seat 28 - 4:04:07

parking space is at the station of course for the transport hub that we're

putting in there. As I say, that's a joint project between ourselves and GWR as

as we have an agreement with them.

So that's why it sparked our interest, to be quite honest.

So if we could have some clarification there as to how that pans out, if you like.

And that's why I'm saying it may be better to do that contribution if the reasoning behind it from the county

is different to how we see the transport hub and the parking provision.

it may be better expressed outside of an S106 under a unilateral undertaking type agreement.

I just put that in the mix because I think it might sort of clear it a bit,

but I don't know because we're unsighted on what the county's thinking was exactly there.

So this is works being undertaken by Great Western Rail, is that what you're saying?

And ourselves.

And yourselves.

And so how does the county fit into it?

they the today

So it's an open question as to that

Yeah

So obviously the in terms of the highway contribution the County Council are the party to the agreement and that is the highways authority

And the purposes that have just been read out of what we found in and have been inserted into the definition. So

They are whilst we need to make sure that the contributions have a clear purpose. There's also an element of

not flexibility but scope in case you know the specifics of the pedestrian

cycle and parking spaces change and it's up to the County Council as the

authority to determine you know what element of that and how that's paid for

obviously I can't comment to anything further behind that.

I think the difficulty is...

I'll say this to the tech person.

There may be a slight misunderstanding as well.

The County Council can receive this as a defined local planning authority in relation to county matters.

The Town Council doesn't have the power to receive monies in relation to that, so it has to be to the County Council.

There is no difference. A unilateral undertaking is within section 106.

A bilateral undertaking agreement is also in section 106 so the the mechanism makes no difference

It's what the amount of money is for

Self -evidently we've taken that amount of money. We're not arguing against it, but the sensible thing. I think so is perhaps to provide clarity

To you as to exactly

Just as we're doing for the monitoring fee as to exactly what the fifty thousand pounds is for

and when we do that we might want to draw attention to the county of the absence of a still compliance statement and that might be quite useful for you to have even in sort of short form.

We might even send them the Planning Inspectorate Guide to 106 obligations and a couple of paragraphs that are needed to justify contributions.

I think from our perspective that's helpful. I think the rail officer at the county should

be the person consulted as well. I think just to be clear, I think we're not

unhappy for developer to provide assistance by way of contribution for the developments

that are going to be used by the residents of this new development. However, we do find

it strange as one of the two joint tenants in common of the property

providing the development that we have not been party to any discussions with

regard to those contributions. And that's why I think it's very important that the

as I say at the county and have include the rail officer for the cap at the

county level he will be able to help on transport hub type issues for you.

We will refer you to the county council and we will refer you to the county council.

We will find out what the county council says in justification for that figure so you at least have that figure.

And you can decide whether or not it meets the requirements of the certain quantity.

Just to add as well, obviously we are liaising with the county council solicitors.

We cannot go to the relevant officers.

It is up to them who they consult in relation to this agreement.

From our perspective, we have found that with agreements.

We are well aware of, we have received monies before that were part of UU and they did come

through the local planning authority or the county.

We are comfortable with that.

Thank you.

Next is the home to school transfer contribution, so that is page 40 as well.

I was just trying to cross reference here between how it is defined at page 12 and how

it is written about here.

I should just add as well, in relation to the definition on page 12, a point that had

embraced by my client where you get to the calculation, there's an A equals pupil yield

of 29. We've just sought to clarify how that 29 is reached and we have the calculation,

but it was after we'd submitted the document, so it's just a note really that how that number

29 has got to will be inserted into that definition.

So my question, which you may or may not just answer, is at page 40 it says it's to be used

for provision of school transportation for additional secondary school children that

cannot be accommodated within a statue walking distance. So will that specifically be picked

up and what you've just discussed and how we get to 29 pupils? Yeah that

calculation will say how that 29 is reached. Okay. Can I just say on a

technical point it's not necessarily about the distance of schools within

their secondary school planning area it is down to the nearest available school

all of which are going to be in excess of three miles to Moreton in Marsh and at

this point this is why I wanted to make reference to the issue of post 16 issues

within Morton in Marsh is we have had experiences last year where there were 15 Morton in Marsh

pupils who had been through secondary education at Chippengandon with assistance by transport

who wanted to continue at the sixth form there. There were three places on those busses and

therefore no further addition was out. And that is the difficulty you have when you come

and live in more than marsh with children,

there's no post -16 access to them.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

I think those are the two substantive points that I had,

but let me just cheque.

Yes, that's it. No draughts or any other questions. Thank you.

And then with the districts.

Seat 20 - 4:11:46

I'm just looking, so the definition of open space area is page 16.

It includes SUDS.

I'm just wondering do we just need to bear that in mind when we have our conditions session tomorrow to make sure that the way these two documents,

how this document talks to the conditions to make sure that they don't contradict each other or overlap each other.

Because I haven't read the conditions properly yet so I don't know.

It might be that everything is fine but I just wanted to highlight that.

The suds are included really because, and I appreciate you may have comments that come

on to it, but it's mainly in relation to the offers and the transfer of the areas as opposed

to digging into the technical details because it is assumed that that's dealt with by condition

but obviously I can liaise with my colleagues dealing with the conditions afterwards just

to double cheque.

Normally I would have checked it myself but I just haven't had time yet today to look at both.

So just on that, page 45, paragraph 4 .7b, expressly excludes the SUDs area for the areas that are to be made available for public use.

That may be asked of your question but can't be revisited tomorrow.

Sometimes maintenance comes up as well, but again, I'll just bear in mind when I'm reviewing the conditions this evening.

I think that might be everything.

Yes, nothing else from me. Anything from any of the councillors or other interested parties?

This is an instance where the default management company

and the man code is described as H4 to farm 47

and the documents serve that way as well.

Okay, thank you.

So thank you, sorry, well,

it was a good old bad thing that I barely needed you,

but thank you for your attendance anyway.

And now as I said, if we could perhaps just deal

with just those conditions,

because I said I haven't read them yet,

but just the conditions that Mr. Lewis is concerned with.

Sorry, just before I jump on, just to say that I'll speak to the county solicitor overnight

and hopefully he's double booked tomorrow at another inquiry but only in the afternoon

so we should be able to come back to you hopefully on those viewpoints tomorrow morning.

Okay, and Mr. Tucker, is 14 days still your expected?

Those are my instructions from Miss Cartlidge -Taylor. I don't know whether or

not that's acceptable to the District Council but again we can cheque with the

County Council that that will be acceptable overnight and report back and

hopefully from the District Council that gives enough time. I certainly know this

this as you'll see from the front sir that this is not where you've got a

finance company involved so it should be horribly straightforward to get

signatures from the applicants and land on the side.

Yes, that's fine from our point of view. Just to clarify, do you need the district council

solicitor here tomorrow? Although I can forewarn him not to attend.

I don't think I do. But he was due to attend tomorrow.

I mean, it may be worth him coming. I suppose it depends how clear the instructions

are, if they feel after they've been given their instructions following this discussion

that they don't need to be here then I don't see the need because they'd just be asking

the same questions I've already asked.

Well I wonder if the answer might be to, for Ms Carter -Leach -Taylor, just make a quick

phone call to both colleagues to find out whether or not District Council Solicitor

needs to be here in the light of what's just been said and secondly to forewarned

Council were expecting essentially a mini silk compliance statement on them and then report back at the end. That's not inviting

Ms. Cartley -Stedley just to go back into her cupboard for the sake of it.

But if that's acceptable, sir. Yes, that is. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm looking at my Rosewell target for writing a decision. Oh, it's ages away. Okay, fine. So yes, 14 days is fine.

Thank you sir.

Okay, so from the additions, so I really haven't read these at all yet, so which ones do we need to look at now for Mr Lewis?

It's 7 and 10 sir.

So 7 and 8, looking at the wrong bit then.

Okay, just 7, 8 and 9 cover the three conditions recommended by Thames Water.

Just to clarify, the first one deals with foul water pipes leading from development.

eight deals with sewage treatment works and nine deals with water supply networks.

So that's why there's the three separate ones.

So can I ask you all first to just bear with me while I read them please.

Okay, so my first question, what's the distinction between Fairwater Network and Sewerage Works?

You want me to answer that? I'm happy to, unless, I mean, you know, it's up to you.

Essentially, when we get the response from Thames Water, they break it down into the

infrastructure that deals with the taking away of the waste, which is like the pipes,

etc. and in between the development and the sewage treatment works.

So that's covered by the first bit.

Then they have a specific condition which deals with, or they have a specific section that deals with the sewage treatment works.

So that's condition eight. The upgrade is necessary at the sewage treatment works.

And then because Thames Water also deal with water supply in this instance, there's a capacity issue in terms of water supply,

so that needs to be upgraded as well. So they've recommended a third condition on that matter.

So the wording is effectively what they said with just a couple of little words added in.

So that's why it's broken into three separate bits.

It can be a bit confusing, but that's how they kind of word it.

And how does this relate to what we discussed before about the difference between the sewage works and the distribution network?

Mr Lewis, you might be better.

Okay, so to deal with the distribution network is relatively simple.

it can be as simple as, for argument's sake,

in this case it's a short, I think we can agree

it's a short length of pipe from the development

into the works.

So it will be provision of a main,

either a rising main, a pumped main, or a gravity -fed main,

and that will be appropriately sized,

225, 250, or whatever the pipe diameter is,

to take the sewage from the Bloor development

in a careful manner and deliver it

to the sewage treatment works without backing up

into the properties. So that's clear and relatively straightforward. And it's that 20 month period.

They will give you from granting of planning permission, they will then design, implement

and build for you. They will design, model and build it for you. That's what Thames will

do. The big stopper is the sewage works because it then arrives at a series of large tanks,

treatment plants and pipes and pumps and that is the piece which is really the

contentious issue and my problem with these conditions is that they've been

proposed by a private company with a vested interest and in talking to the

District Council officials today the officer today they will be discharged on

the say so of a private company with a vested interest now given the two

successive secretaries of state and the Cunliffe inquiry which is just finished

have all stated quite categorically that water companies will no longer be able

to self assess, be able to mark their own homework. It seems iniquitous for this

type of condition to be put in place. I would have thought that the least we

would have is with any condition whether it's above ground development or first

occupancy and I've explained why I don't think first occupancy is good or robust

is that it will be discharged by the regulator which Mr Tucker has said quite clearly we

should place faith in. If we are placing faith in the Environment Agency to regulate this

system of permits then it seems logical for them to be the arbiter to make sure those

permits have in fact been complied with with the upgrade and that would be a reasonable

and normal system.

I also have a problem with the either or because I've seen as we explained before the development

phasing plans being abused.

I cannot see how, and I think Mr. Green may be able to offer a different opinion, how

you have 195 houses that will discharge in tranches through a development phasing plan

into the sewage works, which isn't completed.

These are all the ores.

they either upgraded and finished and they comply with their permit or they are not upgraded

and finished. And we saw what happened with the Spitfire development and the Spitfire

development was, it was awful. I mean to watch that happening and the planning condition

and the one at Minster level, they are just not being upheld correctly and a development

phasing plan cannot work for a serious treatment upgrade unless there's capacity and there's

It's breached its dry weather flow in a statutory three out of five years and in fact with your development

It would breach it it would have breached it in the last eight years and that means it's permits gone

It's broken. So there is no way that the works can continue to operate legally unless it's completely upgraded

so fuzzy to say

I'm like

Correct or incorrect and beginning condition seven relates to distribution or condition eight to waste

the sewage and waste

treatment works.

Yes, that's correct.

One is the means of delivery and the other is the means of treatment.

OK. Just a point of clarification.

Then I understand the point you've just been making. Mr Green.

I'm diving with one point first of all.

These conditions are not discharged by Thames Water.

These conditions could not lawfully be discharged by Thames Water,

could not lawfully be discharged by the Environment Agency or off water or

anyone else apart from Cotswold District Council and it's a matter for Cotswold

District Council to decide who they consult. So it will be open to Cotswold

District Council for example in this situation to say we will consult Thames

Water and their another party such as the Environment Agency or such as well

we have scepticism about Thames Waters ability to give us rational and

We want to make sure that we

have meaningful advice.

We want independent advice.

It's down to the district

council acting rationally as

local planning authority to

decide who they consult with

and whether or not they should

discharge the condition.

Whilst in practise, the

assumption may be that they

will consult Thames water and

that that will be the only

party they will need to consult

and that may have been the

to that but the only party that can discharge these conditions are the

district council and for the perspective of the decision before you sir the

question is whether or not these conditions are enforceable mindful that

is the district council acting properly in deciding whether or not to discharge

them so that's the answer the first point doesn't mandate Thames Water

signing this off at all in answer to the second point in relation to the phasing

issue. The District Council has already granted a non -material amendment in

relation to Spitfire Homes but whatever may have happened in relation to Spitfire

Homes to fall within the second part of the condition my clients would have to

demonstrate that there is a development and infrastructure plan in place which

is then agreed in writing which avoids exactly the scenario that's been

described to you a moment or two ago. And if that's right, sir, and you have to work

on the assumption they will consult properly and discharge it properly, again, that should

resolve the concerns that have been expressed. Who they consult, how they discharge it, is

ultimately a matter that's then subject to criticism, subject to whatever other means

may be brought to bear in relation to them. But one would have thought that they would

be acutely aware of the points raised at this inquiry in that and no doubt comments may

be made in relation to your decision. But in terms of the position, it's down to the

District Council and you are not being asked to mandate that this is the arbiter of these

conditions should be Thames Water.

Thank you.

Sorry, I have a real problem with that.

Green can then just come in with a response.

If I hear the technical response as well, then I'll come back to you, Mr Lewis.

To the phasing.

Anything really, but particularly questions.

I agree with what my colleague was saying.

In terms of phasing and how capacity can be made available without computer works,

in many instances it's fixing issues in the existing network.

I know in terms of water reports, for example, they quote the groundwater ingress into the sewer pipes.

is an issue, so pipelining and things like that can be a way to return capacity, just

as an example.

That is not the case with Morton in Marsh sewage works, we discussed that earlier, which

is why Primrose Court, you were quite clear, it's out of the game, but to use the phrase

Primrose Court rides shotgun for the Morton in Marsh sewage works.

So all of the infiltration goes to Primrose Court sewage pumping station, which spills

phenomenally, it dumps untreated sewage phenomenally into the land treatment area.

But that in its own right protects the downstream more than works from overwhelming.

And the issue that you have got, there's no infiltration from your development clearly

because you're going to put new pipe work in.

If there is, then there's a real problem.

So you've got a sealed system which will put in 300 litres a day per house, roughly, that's

conservative, it may be 400, into the sewage treatment works through a new system of pipes

which won't infiltrate.

You have to ensure that, that's your obligation.

And the Environment Agency are quite clear in their advice to this planning appeal that

any upgrade will have a detrimental impact on the dry weather flow to an already failing

sewage treatment works which will impact on the downstream water quality in the receiving

water courses. There is no way that you can bring new housing into that sewage treatment

works without that happening. And the Environment Agency have told you that quite categorically.

Now, in terms of writing and discharging the permission, I absolutely understand what Mr.

Tucker says, that it's the local planning authority's responsibility to discharge.

But in practise, and speaking to the council officer earlier, he said categories Thames

Water, and we advise them.

Now, if you ask the environment agency, they will tell you that there is no phasing plan

that can be accepted and I would be quite happy to have a gramping condition written

in here which says a third party, not Thames Water, will be the arbiter.

I don't mind who it is.

It can be an appointee from CIWEM, it can be the Environment Agency, but if we rely

on the local planning authority then I am afraid they will default to Thames Water and

And that is why people have lost faith in the water system, why it is so corrupted,

why the regulators have been captured and why we as a public have no faith in these

systems of appeal, of planning and why we are inundated with sewage.

It's a straightforward issue which can be dealt with properly by a well constructed

and well thought out, Grampian condition which is not open to abuse and not open to failure

by local planning authorities who frankly haven't got the expertise.

I don't blame them.

Why would they have?

That's not their line of business.

And the people whose line of business it is Thames Water.

They are conflicted and have been shown to be corrupted.

The Environment Agency are in a difficult position but they have expressed to West Oxfordshire

district council formally that they will arbitrate in decisions such as this.

It seems logical and democratic to ask them to do it.

I was going to actually ask because I wondered if we could build something into that condition

because I'm not familiar with how condition, what the art of the possible is on conditions

But as borns just said, you know, is there any possibility of building that in because in the Spitfire?

I mean the Spitfire is still doing its 50 homes in its phasing plan

The pressure is still on the treatment works and the pumping station in their case

Yeah, I just wonder if there is a way forward on this in the condition in the wording. So can I help?

Afraid is no there is

It's one of the regular book bears at inquiries of this nature, that very often it's down

to some of the consultees that don't understand this point.

One cannot work into a condition of mandatory requirement to consult anybody.

It's down to the discretion of the District Council and one can't use Section 72 of the

1990 Act to fetter that discretion.

However, again, the District Council has to act in a way which is rational.

and that's either to take view that they are satisfied

with the information provided to it

by the party they consult,

or if they're not for whatever reason,

and they would have to have a reason,

that they could then consult more widely,

or indeed say to the developer,

well, we don't agree with what BWB

or whoever else has set out,

or we express scepticism,

we want your work audited,

so you're gonna have to get it marked by somebody.

That sometimes happens in the context

of affordable housing,

but that will be down to the discretion

of the local planning authority

at the point of discharge. There is a circular which is largely being revoked called a circular

1195 which deals with conditions which made that very clear within its body. It's also

a position that's set out in the PPG. So one can't add in a mandatory requirement to consult

because that will be fettering the authorities discretion. But I'm not in any way suggesting

that the council will be acting irrationally if they want to consult wider than Thames

water? In theory then the answer to avoid the risk is simply remove the either or.

It's just number one and not number one or number two. So that's a different point

and no the answer isn't that. Number two can only be discharged again in the

advice on the basis that the authority are satisfied that what we are proposing

within the plan does not result in the out terms that have been expressed and

if we're not satisfying the authority that pass the condition would not be

discharged. I think the point there is and and and and colleague you may be

misunderstood I mean if a gramping condition was made with just all foul

network and all sewage works upgrades to be made prior to development

above ground and no development phasing plan for it is. Can I ask I mean the man

on the Clapham omnibus being presented with the information that you have been

presented from the Environment Agency would draw the conclusion quite reasonably that

that sewage works cannot take any more sewage.

Now I would argue to put in a development phasing plan which said you could bring housing

into that sewage treatment work in a controlled way in advance of an upgrade would lay you

open probably I believe to the charge of a judicial review for wensbury unreasonableness

because that, as I understand, is a test of the man on a clapham omnibus test

and I think given that information provided to you, it would be quite reasonable to think that

Sumit's treatment works cannot take any more. Now, you know, heaven forbear we end up in that territory

but we have been close already with challenges to West Oxford District Council.

Shall we get up to that, rather than talking about it in the abstract?

Sorry, I probably stepped over, but to me that seems reasonable that you have been presented

with that evidence.

There is another issue. In two years time, the Cops and District Council will not exist.

So this will then pass to a future authority. We must be, sorry, we should be precise about

what we intend because the new authority may know nothing about this development. The officers

will be completely different. All that will be available will be the discussion that has

taken place here. So I do think one should make it a bit certain. I would add these words

to 7 -1 and also to 8 -1 after completing to the satisfaction of a third party to be agreed

between the LPA and the developer and I would say accept 10th authorization with third party.

And therefore that would mean that the new authority might actually want to change the

third party because that's what I was actually going in both one after completed and in eight

after completed. Okay thank you so I'm just reading the EA's comments again. Is there any

particularly want to take me to. Yeah if you can I'm in my evidence. Okay. So I was

going straight to the EA. Oh sorry well I've taken I've taken from it. My point

20 said the Environment Agency further state that Thames water needs to apply

for a new dry weather flow permit to support new development. I put that in

bold over the future local plan period. This will require and they do refer

elsewhere to intervening planning applications as well. This will require

require tighter nutrient discharge limits and an increase to flow to full treatment

and storm tank capacity.

Until the works to increase the capacity are delivered, all development requiring new connexions

to main sewer will increase the load to Morton and Marsh Sewers Treatment Works and increase

nutrient concentrations in discharges from it to the even load Compton to Bledington

Brook and Forshire stream and even load source to Forshire stream and Longborough stream

over discharge points presenting a risk of deterioration to water quality and

this is the important part sir it is important than LPAs and I've put and by

extension inspectors account for this risk in their decision -making I don't

think environment agency could be any clearer than that sir and they have said

that this works is effectively bust.

I'm just reading it now.

Anything for me in this degree, Mr Tucker?

I can't disagree with what has been said in terms of the EIA's feedback on that.

We are only party to Thames Waters considerations and the playing conditions allow for works

to be completed.

I will go back to the comments on the infiltration, the capacity limitation.

I only meant that as an example of what could, in any kind of scenario, introduce capacity.

There might be other things that Thames Water could do at the plant to introduce that.

I don't know what they are. I don't know what their limitations are.

They don't publish what the failings of that plant are internally, so I can't comment on that.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that through delivering,

say they need two additional tanks to give capacity and they deliver one,

that that can't be part of the phasing plan while the second one is being built

for example. So can I just add mine to Penilworth in relation to this. There

appear to be a number of points that have been raised. I'm afraid that the

suggestion that there's a requirement for somebody to be consulted falls

foul at the same point that I may be made before. Secondly in terms of the

The issue of when there is a preclusion, we say occupation,

you've heard a differing view and you'll form your own view

in relation to that.

The third point relates to whether

or not the second part of the condition should be there

or shouldn't be there.

So it's that point I would just want to address.

The second part is not just a development plan.

It's not saying we will bring forward the face of the development

at these given times.

It is a development and infrastructure phasing plan that's got to be agreed in writing with

the authority so as to allow the development to be occupied.

And if it's not agreed, then occupation can't take place.

That development and infrastructure plan, to discharge it rationally, would have to

make sure that that part of the development could come forward because of things that

have been done to accommodate foul water.

it would have to because it covers infrastructure as well.

Now as we sit here now we can speculate whether there could be nothing at all,

Mr. Lewis's thesis, that could be done and it's all or nothing, it's a singular

issue in which case that will never get discharged or it may be that there are

some things that those in the room are not aware of in which case if one

doesn't have the second part of that condition it precludes the opportunity

of my clients to bring forward part of the development at an earlier point in

having satisfied the decision maker,

that there are things that can be done

that allows X number of units to come forward.

To exclude that would be directly counterproductive

to all the evidence you've heard

about the need for housing in this particular district.

And similarly, if one thinks about the point,

my point made earlier on about making sure

you don't stop at a given point in time

when the brickies could actually be continuing

to build the houses,

where you know that we are X weeks away from the next point out which something can be

done which could be delivering matters. What you would be doing is removing flexibility

from the condition, whereas the eventuality that's being discussed with you, I'm sure

Mr Lewis is profoundly sceptical. And if his scepticism is borne out and the authority

do their job properly, as one must assume that they should do, then that second part

would never be brought forward but if you remove it you preclude the

opportunity of bringing forward the developments in a sensible phase way.

Okay thank you. Thank you sir. Any final comments on those two conditions?

I just go back to that I suppose my concern about the democratic deficiency

in some of this and the fact that since February the 18th when we all

submitted out or 19th or whenever it was our evidence at that time Thameswater

had a completion date for Morton Sewist Treatment Works of 2029. As of today, they have no completion

date and are unable to advise and that message is repeated across multiple works on their

website. So what you have seen is a Sewist Treatment Works which should have been completed

for upgrade in 2024, was due for completion for upgrade in 2027, was due for completion

and upgrade in 2029 and now has no date upon it.

Now the problem we have as a group and I have nothing against housing.

I've got a young daughter, you know, she wants, they want houses.

Our concern is clean rivers.

We have no faith that in the face of huge pressure from a developer who will in four

or five years time of 195 houses built ready to go and sold in the very likely position

that Thames water has not upgraded its works and that failure to get to stick to that 2029

2030 deadline is you know that that speaks to that we've slipped backwards again.

Then the good council officials at CDC are going to be an in an impossible position utterly

impossible and I take on board what Mr. Tucker says about searches. I've brought

enough houses backwards and forwards moved and I know what searches are. I

know how difficult they are. I know how flawed that system is and how much

pressure then solicitors can come under in various places and Bloor will

probably be selling some of these houses off book I don't know but CDC will be

under huge pressure to let those people in. It is almost impossible to see how

they withstand that pressure.

Which is why a development phasing plan

is utterly, utterly unacceptable.

Because if you know anything about sewage treatment works

and their reality, you can see that the problems at Morton,

which will involve basically moving all of that capacity

for storming from Primrose Court on that land treatment area

because tenders will no doubt want to develop that,

into Morton in Marsh with a huge upgrade of storm tanks.

They will have to have big aerated sludge lanes.

It's a massive undertaking.

These things do not happen in isolation.

You do not slot it together like Lego.

It's a huge operation to make this work.

And my big concern is that we are sleepwalking into a situation

where the well -intentioned development from Bloor will simply make this work

for the environment of the River Imelod

and not only for Morton but for people downstream.

And the cumulative impact that we talk about

is felt absolutely fundamentally in that river. In fact the environment agencies,

mass balance equations, looking at water quality

use exactly that, cumulative impact from upstream

which is what Mr Green and I can actually both agree with

that this will, unless we have some radical changes and stuff we cannot see

happening

this development will worsen water quality in that river

and condemn it to years of poor quality and

poor environment. And that serves down to your decision obviously.

Thank you very much.

The points don't get better by repetition.

I was only going to say that the condition 27 that I spoke about this morning did have

the infrastructure elements in it.

To be honest, it is a concern because if the existing pipes fail, then we would be left

with an environmental emergency and that's the point I need to make.

Okay, thank you. Okay, anything further today?

Thank you.

Councillor Viviana came up to me at the end of the last session to say that she was so

happy with the route that's been put forward for the site visit.

Can I just say you might want to add in the, I pointed out the sewage treatment works and

I'm sure you have, which is at the bottom of your proposed site.

And I think that's a really important part of your visit.

If you wanted to do the pumping station to understand both sides of it,

because if the treatment works can't take the sewage for any reason,

it gets stuck in the storm tanks down at the pumping station.

And they can't stop operating.

They're not allowed to stop operating.

And that then means they overflow.

and that's what the spill site licences are for on the land treatment area and I

know the land treatment area isn't near the Bloor development but that's the

consequence. Thank you. Thank you. Yes Councillor Andal.

Sadly, I won't be with you tomorrow, but I wondered,

condition 20 refers to reserve matters and in particular,

excessive levels of noise.

I have meetings at the Cotswold Business Village and frequently,

there is a very loud humming noise from one of the adjoining areas.

Now, I'm not sure if that still continues,

but it may be that when you get to the side of the site nearest the village, you might want to hear it if indeed that noise is going.

Because if I live the other side, I do actually have a hearing aid, I'd probably take it off.

But for those who do live there, that could be quite irritating.

Now, it may be that it's not there anymore, but it certainly has been resubmitted.

Okay well I'll both look at the noise assessment that's been submitted and also consider that when I'm on site as well.

Okay thank you so it's confirmed tomorrow will be the rest of the conditions

any closings and then that will be it.

And if there are any closings today we'll be very short.

Okay in that case thank you everybody the inquiry is adjourned as I just said it's 9 30 tomorrow 9 10.

Thank you.

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.

Planning Appeal - Tuesday 21 April 2026, 10:17am - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning AppealTuesday, 21st April 2026 at 10:17am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Tyler Jardine, Officer - 0:01:57

Seat 20 - 0:05:51

Seat 20 - 0:37:14

Seat 20 - 0:37:30

Seat 26 - 1:05:57

Seat 20 - 1:12:41

Seat 4 - 1:37:34

Seat 29 - 1:39:36

Seat 20 - 1:40:48

Seat 20 - 2:34:24

Seat 28 - 2:45:43

Seat 32 - 3:05:44

Seat 41 - 3:24:35

Seat 28 - 3:24:38

Seat 20 - 3:24:46

Seat 32 - 3:24:46

Seat 28 - 3:25:00

Seat 20 - 3:25:30

Seat 28 - 3:26:50

Seat 20 - 3:26:52

Seat 32 - 3:27:27

Seat 29 - 3:47:56

Seat 20 - 3:55:41

Seat 20 - 3:56:30

Seat 20 - 3:56:39

Seat 28 - 4:04:07

Seat 20 - 4:11:46

Planning Appeal
Tuesday, 21st April 2026 at 10:17am