Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 3 August 2026, 4:00pm

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Monday, 3rd August 2026 at 4:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Simon Harper, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Naomi Bloomer
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Jon Wareing
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Claire Bloomer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Officer
Julia Gibson, Officer
Simon Harper, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Naomi Bloomer
Councillor Gina Blomefield

4 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Councillor Mike Evemy

7 Local Plan

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield

5 Public Questions

Share this agenda point

Simon Harper, Officer
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Officer
Simon Harper, Officer
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Simon Harper, Officer
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Simon Harper, Officer
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Public Speaker
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield

6 Member Questions

Share this agenda point

Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield

7 Local Plan

Share this agenda point

Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Naomi Bloomer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Jon Wareing
Councillor Claire Bloomer
Councillor Mike Evemy
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Jon Wareing
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield

7 Local Plan

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Officer
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Officer
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Michael Vann
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Mike Evemy
Officer
Councillor Juliet Layton
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Claire Bloomer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Jon Wareing
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Simon Harper, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Claire Bloomer
Simon Harper, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Lisa Spivey
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Simon Harper, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:00

Before we go any further, I'll go through a rather more extensive housekeeping assisted also

by Simon Harper who helps with democratic services.

As there are more members of the public than normal present who are going to be observing

and asking questions on the single topic O &S is discussing today, the new local plan.

So this is to do with the far exits and safety.

And Simon has the details for you.

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:00:40

Thank you chair. We don't expect a fire alarm during this meeting, however should it be

activated there are two fire exits. One is through the doors at the back there, the doors

that are closed at the moment. That's the one fire exit so people on this side of the

go through that door and then people on this side of the chamber go through the main entrance

door and down the stairs there. There will be fire marshals that will lead you to the

assembly points. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:01:10

Alright, well thank you. And can I do the normal reminder please could you all turn

your phones or other devices to turn them off or put them to silent. If anyone wishes

to film proceedings. This is permitted, provided it does not disrupt proceedings. It will be

live streamed so you can look at it later. It is live. There are many people here who

clearly feel very strongly about their community and how it may be affected by the greatly

increased housing numbers. But I want to ask everyone to behave in a civil manner as would

be expected of Cotswold residents throughout the meeting. If for whatever reason the situation

becomes difficult, I will ask members of the committee to vote to suspend the meeting until

the room is cleared and order is restored. I also want to acknowledge and welcome the

cabinet members and officers who will be engaged in responding to this report on the local

plan, to all the members of the committee and also the officers present who support

the overview and scrutiny committee in its functions. I particularly want to thank at

point, Nicky Mackenzie Dass and Julia Gibson for putting together these very

very extensive papers. It was a huge challenge to make sure they were ready

in time for this meeting. I know some only came out on Friday but the

challenge and the work was amazing and they've done a wonderful job so thank

1 Apologies

you very much for that. Now could we go on to apologies. Do we have some

apologies? Yes we do and we have apologies from Councillor Tony Slater

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:02:45

and I believe Councillor Laura Hall -Wilson will be substituting for him.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:51

Thank you. Do we have any before we actually go into the main body of the meeting, could

all each member of the committee introduce themselves and the various officers? So starting

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:13

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:15

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:17

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:19

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:03:26

with Angus please. Thank you I'm Councillor Angus Jenkinson I'm from

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:03:36

Moreton East and Tottenham. Hi everybody I'm Mike Eberme I'm the Councillor for

Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:03:45

Siddington and Cerny Rorow ward and I'm the leader of the council. Hello I'm

Juliet Leighton I'm a ward member for South Cerny I'm deputy leader and also

cabinet member for housing and planning.

Councillor Naomi Bloomer - 0:03:56

Hello Naomi Bloomer at St Michael's ward. David Cunningham at Fostridge ward.

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:04:06

I'm Councillor Lisa Spivey and I proudly represent the Anthony's and Hampton.

Councillor Jon Wareing - 0:04:13

Councillor John Waring, Borton Village Ward.

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:04:17

Councillor Claire Taylor representing Bockley Ward.

Councillor Claire Bloomer - 0:04:22

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor Claire Bloomer and I represent the New Mills Ward.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:04:27

Michael Van representing Fairford North.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:04:33

Thank you. Could I now have the officers who are going to be responding? We have three

planning officers and we also have democratic services.

Officer - 0:04:42

Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Magstead. I am the interim head of planning policy and

infrastructure.

Officer - 0:04:50

Hello. My name is Geraldine Le Coint. I am assistant director of planning services.

Officer - 0:04:56

Good afternoon, Helen Martin, Director of Communities and Place.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:05:03

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:05:08

And Julie Gibson, Democratic Services Officer. Simon Harper, Head of Democratic and Electoral

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:13

Services. Well, thank you for that. Now, does anybody

have any declarations of interest on items due to be discussed at the meeting?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:23

Councillor Naomi Bloomer - 0:05:25

I am a governor of one of the schools within the Corinium Education Trust, which is a school

building some of the schools within the plan, I believe, vaguely declaration of interest.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:42

Thank you for that. It is always better to declare an interest in advance, even if it

material rather than the thing so but so thank you and it is I always highly

4 Chair's Announcements

recommend to do that. Right as chairman's announcements our chairs announcements I

should say this is going to be a very busy and long meeting to discuss the

most important topic for Cotswold District Council this year the new local

plan. We have 30 minutes allocated to the time for public questions with each

questioner limited to two minutes in which they can put

one or two questions.

This does not include the time taken to answer them.

So it is likely that we will have only time for

15 questioners.

I want to make as far as possible sure that a spokesman

for each of the 10 strategic sites is able to ask their one

or two questions in the two minutes.

So we'll call on them first, and once that has been completed,

We'll ask people from other communities to put their questions.

The answers may be a short verbal answer now with a longer written answer later because

again if we have very, very long answers that is going to take up a lot of the meeting and

we, this committee actually need to be able to discuss this as well.

So whilst I don't want to put anybody off having a good answer, we will make sure all

questions are answered, including ones which have been sent in and they haven't had a chance

to be aired at the meeting. I also want to just remind everyone what the role of overview

and scrutiny is. It's for the non -executive councillors to hold the leadership, the cabinet

and public services to account. Operating as a critical friend, it reviews policies,

investigates local concerns and evaluates service delivery to improve

decision -making and ensure transparency for residents. We cannot make policy and

do not have the power to make binding decisions today. Without doubt we will

have to take a break as we reach two hours into the meeting. Please can all

members of the committee take their refreshments in the sort of landing by

kitchen and that way out and refrain however tempting to speak to any of the

residents present during this break. There will also be opportunities for

residents to question the cabinet and full council at their next meetings on

the 6th for the cabinet and 12th of August and there will also be public

meetings during the six -week consultation period on Tuesday the 25th

of August at Fairford, Friday the 28th of August and Sarrancestor, Tuesday the 15th

September in Mortner Marsh and Tuesday the 22nd of September in Chippinghamham.

And now in a slight change of order to our normal procedure I'm going to invite

Mike Eberly, the leader of the council, to give a short clarification on the

administration's position regarding the local plan now. I wanted him to do it now

so that those local residents who may be going to ask questions today are aware

of the fuller context, and this will also be helpful for those observing in person today

or indeed watching on the livestream or the later catch -up.

So Michael, can you please?

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:09:11

Thank you, Chair, and just slightly to clarify what you said, I think those events that you

listed are going to be the exhibition dates for the four exhibitions that will be running

during late August and in September, and we are also putting together a schedule of meetings

to take place during the period of the consultation, particularly focused on

communities that are most potentially most affected by the plan. I just wanted

to start by acknowledging anxiety and concern obviously caused by the

publication of our proposed plan on the 24th of July. I appreciate that that may

For some communities it may have been a surprise,

but obviously it is part of the process

7 Local Plan

which I will now give context to.

So members, you'll be aware,

and for members of the public, I'm sure you're also aware,

the new government was elected just over two years ago

with a very clear target to live

at one and a half million homes in five years,

which is 300 ,000 a year.

They set about changing what's called

the National Planning Policy Framework which includes what's called the standard

number, essentially the number of homes that each area is expected to deliver

each year. The number for Cotswold District doubled from less than 500 to

more than a thousand. What that subsequently meant was that our

currently our local plan, the housing policies are now deemed out of date

Because we only have 1 .9 years worth of housing in our local plan.

And under the housing rate, the planning regulations, you need five years to demonstrate five years

of housing land supply.

What that means is that we currently as a council exist where there is a tilted balance

in favour of speculative development.

I'm sure we'll go on and discuss that a little bit more.

But essentially, we have already seen what the impact of that is, and we've lost appeals

of the back of that tilted balance. I personally written to the government

three times asking them to recognise the special circumstances of Cotswolds, 80 %

of our area being national landscape and to adjust our housing target figure. The

second of those included members represented across the chamber and in

the third one we included feedback that we'd received from residents through our regulation

18 consultation.

I have to say the government has been incredibly clear in response to all three of those letters

that they expect this council as the local planning authority to deliver a local plan

to the target that we have been set and that if we're unable to meet that target we have

to prove that to a planning inspector.

So the other context around this is that the council agreed 12 months ago

unanimously that we wanted to update our local plan because the housing policies

set out to date and that's the work that's been going on over the last 12

months. I'm sure you'll be aware we did what was called a Regulation 18

consultation in November -December last year and that included indicative

locations and potential housing allocations but didn't identify

particular sites the total housing that we suggested at that time was also 4 ,000

short of the target that we've been given. So at the same time we ran what

was called a call for sites alongside the Regulation 18 consultation and I

think something around about 200 further sites came in. So the plan that we're

going to be discussing this evening and then on Thursday and then next

Wednesday was developed by the officers of the council in with oversight from the cabinet led by Juliet and myself

Thank you, sir

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:13:13

Well, I'm thinking I hope that was helpful to everyone just to put the context there so now we've got the public questions I

5 Public Questions

Have received and seen many of these in advance and thank local residents for their keen interest in the local plan

As I said earlier, you have two minutes in which to ask one or two questions.

No longer or you will be cut off. There is going to be a countdown on the thing, so you'll see the time.

Don't look at it too much, otherwise you might lose track of your questions. I find that difficult.

I would advise you to keep your introduction to your name and settlement you represent.

I will be using the gavel of the two minutes if you haven't spotted it.

So I've got a list of people we know and it's going to be called out to speak first, so

you've all got a turn and then we'll open it up.

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:14:10

Thanks, Chair. The first person is Councillor Richard Harrison from Fairford Town Council.

Public Speaker - 0:14:27

Richard Harrison from Fairford.

Okay.

The proposals in the draught consultation document seem to be focused on meeting the standard method housing requirement in full.

The big question is whether this is sustainable development.

Have the studies so far carried out really done enough to establish that, both in relation

to individual sites and in combination?

Fifteen parish councils have now written to Angela Rayner explaining why they think the

housing requirement resulting from the standard methods inappropriate for Cotswell District

in the present circumstances, when it's acknowledged that this is only part of a larger housing

market area.

We've asked the progression of the local plan update should be allowed to be delayed pending

establishment of the wider spatial strategy. These may of course require quite different

distribution of housing and importantly different infrastructure priorities from those that

would be required by a Cotswolds only plan, making the latter undeliverable and therefore

unsustainable. We have also asked that the current standard housing requirement and hence

deemed five year housing land supply should be dis -applied in the meantime. It is all

well having an ambitious plan but if it isn't sustainable and doesn't fit with

the wider strategic plan and spatial strategy it isn't going to be

deliverable and then within a few years we'll simply be back with the plan and

free -for -all because of under delivery. Are you prepared to recommend that the

council acknowledges this initiative by the town and parish councils, commits to

doing further work to establish what the housing requirements and distribution

within the current district area would be under a special strategy for the new unitary

authority and repeats our request to the Secretary of State for more time to do this before putting

the plan forward to government.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:16:24

Thank you and well done. It's not easy, I know what is not. So thank you and I shall

ask the officers now to respond. Thank you.

Officer - 0:16:40

Officer - 0:16:43

Thank you.

Officer - 0:16:50

Just so I'm clear, would you like me to respond to that now?

I think there's probably three main points.

I think the first one is that for a local plan to be found sound, it must be deemed

to be consistent with national policy guidance and legislation, which means that it must

meet the housing need in full where it's able to do so. I think Councillor Emory

was saying a moment ago if the council were seeking to suggest that the housing

need could not be met the evidence would need to be sufficiently robust to

satisfy a planning inspector and the evidence as it stands at the moment the

view the considered view is that that would not be reasonable and in such case

the inspector would find the plan unsound if it didn't meet the need in

for which it can do.

There's a point about sustainability.

I think it's important, I mean,

I'll try and keep this brief.

There's obviously more we can say,

we've maybe come back to a little bit later on.

But the plan is proposing the majority of development

on large -street sites, which are not

in the national landscape and are at the larger settlements.

So the development is not having a harmful impact

on the Cotswold National Landscape,

and it's not directed to the smaller,

less sustainable settlements.

So it's at locations that are more sustainable or can be made to be more sustainable and

the advantage of having larger strategic allocations is they can deliver more infrastructure more

effectively so they can be made to be more sustainable over time.

These are all very strongly consistent with national policy which are things the inspectors

will be looking at in detail.

Two other things just very quickly, one on step trajectory, sorry, on the point about

delivery, the plan is proposing a step trajectory so for the first five years

the annual delivery would be the same as it is now the same or more or less the

same as it is now the same as the plan adopted in 2018 so there would be time

for the larger sites to sort of get up to speed and then the delivery would

increase from year six onwards so there isn't any expectation that delivery will

suddenly jump sort of in day one or year one of the plan period. I think that's

that ensures there's time for the infrastructure to be planned properly so that could be delivered

alongside the housing.

The final point about delay, if the council were unable to submit a plan by the end of

December, they would need to basically start the process again.

And realistically, we think a new unitary authority would be unable to have a new plan

in place until approximately 2033.

So there would be a significant period where the area is vulnerable to piecemeal

speculative developments which again we may talk about in more detail a little

bit later but where there would be less much less opportunity to plan

effectively for the infrastructure I think most people would want to have.

I hope that's helpful.

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:19:50

The next speakers are from Downhampton Parish Council. First, Councillor David Iglise.

Public Speaker - 0:20:13

Chair, Members of the Committee, my concern is not whether we need new homes.

We do.

My concern is whether Down Ampte Knees is a suitable and sustainable location for a

future residents. The proposed site lies beneath the operational flight path of RAF Fairford,

a strategic US military air base used by aircraft including B1B and B -52 bombers. Existing

nearby residents already experience intense aircraft noise and vibration disturbances,

yet we're being asked to allocate this site before key points have been answered. The

and adverse health effects. National planning policy requires significant

impacts on health and quality of life to be avoided. What evidence does the

council have that future residents will enjoy a healthy acceptable living

environment in this location? There is also the point of aviation safety.

Government policy recognised that accident risk is the greatest during

takeoff and landing which is why new development is strictly restricted

around many runway approaches. Has the Council obtained an independent assessment of the

risks of placing thousands of more people beneath RAF Fairford's fight plans? Fight

pass, I should say, sorry. I am concerned about a clear contradiction. RAF Fairford

operations are considered significant enough to dictate change of design of land and drainage

because of safeguarding requirements and bird strike risk. If these operations are important

enough to influence how development is designed, why are they not important enough to influence

whether development should be built there at all?

Finally, a development of this scale would fundamentally change the character of Down

Ampere and place substantial pressure on the infrastructure, roads, school, healthcare

and other services.

Chair, these are not minor details.

Given the unresolved concerns around aircraft noise, public health, aviation safety, MOD

safeguarding and infrastructure capacity, does the council have evidence which

demonstrates that placing over 1 ,600 homes beneath RAF Fairford operational

flight path constitutes sustainable development and will the council

publish an independent assessment of these key issues before any allocation

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:22:44

proceeds. Thank you. Well thank you and I'm sorry about that, it was quite

generous actually on your overrun. Are we going to now have somebody, another from

Down Amity? I mean we've got an order of people who would wish to speak.

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:22:59

Yes, Councillor Adam Crawford from Down Amity Parish Council.

Public Speaker - 0:23:09

Afternoon everyone. Councillor Adam Crawford, Down Amity Parish Council. Under the draught

At Cotswold District Local Plan 2026 -2043, a major strategic allocation of 1 ,658 homes

is proposed for Down Amney, which as you know, and my colleague has just explained, is located

close to RAF Fairford.

At present, RAF Fairford does not possess an official military airfield noise map and

is unique as the only active military airfield in the UK without one.

Consequently, Cotswold District Council planners cannot have fully taken into account the true

acoustic boundaries of the base, despite the current high -intensity forward basing of exceptionally

loud United States Air Force B -52H Stratofortress and supersonic B -1B Lancer heavy strategic

bombers.

Given that on the 30th of July, our MP, Ross Savage, wrote directly to the Defence Secretary

requesting that a military airfield noise bat be urgently undertaken to

reflect this severe operational noise will the Planning Department suspend

progression of the 1658 home down AMNI allocation until this crucial Ministry

of Defence to environmental safety data is completed published and fully

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:24:28

assessed thank you thank you very much I thought it'd be good to have the two

down any questions together so I'll now ask our officers to respond.

Officer - 0:24:42

Thank you so if I may answer the kind of sustainability point first.

Development which is 1500 homes or more is regarded as equivalent to something called

a garden village which is kind of large enough to provide things like a primary school and

and a range of other infrastructure.

So that's generally considered to be at a scale

which is kind of in a very sustainable category

and being made to be more sustainable

than smaller developments.

So from a kind of sustainability perspective,

it could be argued that having a single development

of 1500 ohms or more is more sustainable

or is capable of delivering development

that can be made to be more sustainable

than having a series of smaller developments

in other settlements. It also has the advantage of focusing funding on infrastructure more

effectively. So, for example, we deliver improvements to public transport corridors more effectively.

And if they're in the same corridor as some of the other sites, that sort of has a cumulative

benefit impact. It's much more difficult to deliver infrastructure and things like public

transport improvements if we have lots of smaller developments and then we also have

more impact on more places. In terms of the aviation impact, I mean the main

thing I suppose I could say is that we we have been consulting with the MOD.

They have been able to comment on the draught proposals and they've not raised

any concern with this particular proposal. They have raised the concern

for example with a site at Kempsford. There's an allocation proposed at

Kempsford and they've said that there's an area within the redline boundary that

in their opinion, would not be suitable for development.

But that doesn't affect the housing that's proposed.

It just means that things like open space

would be in the area that the MOD have said

wouldn't be suitable for housing.

But they've not raised any concern with this site.

But that doesn't mean that we can't continue,

that process can't continue.

So we certainly have more engagement

on these precise points.

I mean, the Reg 19 is a consultation stage.

That doesn't prevent work with stakeholders ongoing.

It's quite normal for that sort of engagement with stakeholders

to continue.

So that's certainly something we can continue to discuss.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:27:10

Well, thank you very much indeed.

And now we're going to Driffield.

I understand Charlie Duke -Hastings

is the primary spokesman, or will there

be somebody else coming up first?

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:27:21

Public Speaker - 0:27:38

This area is a new project in a different location to the Reg 18 site that has been

rushed into the plan with very curvy preparation and having looked at the reports, extremely

conflicting numbers.

The settlement role function study assessment looks at an

entry called near Driffield, which scored 11 points on the

basis of a local centre, early years provision, a primary

school, an employment site, bus routes and sports pitches.

The footnote says it's been assessed on its own merits.

None of those facilities actually exist.

Everyone would have to be built by the allocation.

The threshold for the principal settlement status is 10.

The study concluded there are 15 principal settlements and table 4 .9

list 16. The two additions are Siddington and the Driffield new settlement. Will

the committee recommend that the Driffield entry is removed from the

principal settlement classification until the facilities it scored upon

actually exist? The report before you asked cabinets and the council on the

12th of August to agree two things in a single resolution. Recommendation one is

that the plan is published for consultation from the 24th of August and recommendation

two is that the quote thereafter the plan is submitted to the government for independence

examination. Read together those authorised submission before a single consultation response

has been received. Recommendation three then delegates any changes following the consultation

to an officer in consultation with the portfolio holder. On the face of the report, there's

further decision by members of the Council between the 12th of August and

submission in December, which doesn't sound like a very democratic process. Will

the committee recommend to cabinet the recommendation 2 is amended so that

after the consultation closes a further report comes back to the Council setting

out the representations received and Council decides at that point whether to

submit. That would not delay the timetable by a single day.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:29:44

Thank you. Was anybody else who wants to come speak on Triphield now? Thank you very much.

Public Speaker - 0:30:01

table one of the housing land supply step requirement topic paper puts the housing

requirement for the plan period at 17 ,918 dwellings and the total housing

supply at 18 ,911 that is headroom of 993. The Drifield allocation contributes

1 ,090 dwellings within the plan period. Remove it and the supply falls to 17 ,821.

That leaves the plan 97 dwellings short of local housing need across 17 years.

5 .7 dwellings a year against a windfall allowance in the same document of 2 ,289.

Your own site template records that Driffield delivers zero completions in

the first five years following adoption so removing it has no effect at all on

the five -year housing supply. Given the lack of due diligence and the rush

nature of the new Driffield site, if the shortfall really is 97 dwellings on what

basis is a 2 ,222 home new settlement with no master plan the proportionate way

to close it. In November 2025 the examining Stroud District Council

local plan review declined to reopen hearings after the national highways

produced evidence on the capacity of junctions 12 and 14 not being suitable.

Cotswold now proposed 7 ,597 dwellings of allocated capacity in and around Sire ancestor, of which circa 6 ,000 fall within the planned period.

At Driffield, your strategic transport assessment only models 1 ,090 dwellings, and yet the allocation is for over 2 ,200.

What written confirmation has the Council obtained from National Highways that it's content with the assessment of the A417 and the A419 corridor for the full allocations?

And will the committee ask for the correspondence be placed before Cabinet on Thursday's meeting?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:32:15

Thank you. Well practised spot on. Thank you. Very impressive.

I didn't know whether Mike, you wanted to come back on any element in that, but let

Andrew go first.

Thank you.

Officer - 0:32:31

I think they've done very well to keep to time, but they've also managed to include

quite a lot of questions.

I'll do my best to try and cover each of them, but as quickly as possible.

So I think that the classification of the settlement in terms of being a principal settlement,

I think it's suggesting that in time with the facilities

to be provided, it would be equivalent

to a principal settlement.

If it's suggested that, it would be better to say

that it's a non -principal settlement

and then review the classification of future plan.

I don't think that is in itself difficult particularly,

if that's sort of considered better.

In terms of the decision -making process, the way the system works is that a Reg 19 plan

is the plan the council intends to submit. The council doesn't have any mechanism to

change it. It can identify proposed modifications to sort of try and assist the inspector if

they wish to, but ultimately it would be for an inspector to decide if there are modifications

or not. So the only mechanism available to the council post Reg 19 is to decide not to

progress the plan. But the council can do that if they wish to have an exceptional meeting

to withdraw the plan. The council can do that any time. So if they're going ahead with publishing

a Reg 19, there's no mechanism within the regulations that would allow the council to

change it other than to continue to submit or to decide not to submit. Because the Reg

is the document that will be submitted that's how the system works. It's quite

normal for that process that's that's how it would be expected to work in

other councils. In terms of the planning headroom and ordinarily a planning

inspector would expect more headroom than this plan has. There isn't as much

headroom in this plan as normal because there are not unlimited sites available

for development obviously there are constraints including the national

landscape and we're proposing a step trajectory in order to manage the

increase in delivery over time because it isn't possible to deliver all of the

housing kind of in year one. So in the Cotswold context it's considered

reasonable but ordinarily a planning inspector would expect the headroom to

be higher and taking it out does put the plan at greater risk and you know I

appreciate that from a Driffield perspective the preference might be to

remove the Driffield site but if there was a question around headroom it may be

that anyone else from any other settlement would prefer that it was that

proposal that was taken out instead of the Driffield one. The allocation is up

to 2043 as for 1090 there is potential for more development in the longer term

But there will be a new plan every five years, so there will be at least two if not three more local plans

Adopted before 2043 which can sort of course correct if required so at this stage

There's an allocation for a certain amount of development with potential for longer

And the evidence has been

prepared on the basis of what's happening up to

2043 and National Highways have been involved throughout the process of producing the highway evidence and had opportunity to comment on each and every stage and

albeit engagement with stakeholders as I was saying before to the MOD will continue engagement

with national highways will continue as well.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:36:12

I was just having a few requests for having an increased volume.

I can actually hear quite well but I think some people have been struggling to follow

everything so if you could have that change.

Thank you.

Officer - 0:36:38

Officer - 0:36:45

The evidence is focused on the development proposed to 2043, which is 1090, and national

highways are engaging on that basis for the most part.

So the strategic transport assessment models 1 ,090, not higher?

That's what it said.

So highways are not therefore not in the increased number as things go?

Well the plan is saying there is potential for development beyond 2043,

that it's not specifically allocating that it's allocating the housing up to

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:37:25

2043 which is what's been tested at this stage. I think if you want further

clarification do send in those extra things so you've got absolute

understanding of the issue. I know that we've all looked at so many of these numbers

and figures that sometimes it's quite difficult to see which relates to which

bit of the plan and you can pick up different numbers.

You should be set up a consultation.

Democratic services, please.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:37:52

Right, I wanted to know if Mike Eberme wanted to come in too.

I think Andrew has answered the question about how we deal with Regulation 19,

which is different to Regulation 18.

Just to, we haven't really talked through the process that happens after this,

and officers please correct me if I get this wrong.

But the intent, as Andrew has said, is that we will submit our Regulation 19 plan by the end of the calendar year, and that's the deadline the government has given us to go under this regime.

So if we don't go under the current way in which plans are submitted, then the likelihood is we won't get a plan until the new council is set up and five years into the new council.

That was the timetable.

What is, what will have to happen though is that once the plan, so that will then

be subject to an examination in public where the inspector or inspectors will

have, yeah, basically take evidence on the plan and they can call in people

including people who've objected to the plan, make alternative representations

because I'm sure there will be not just people, maybe like some people in this

room, who will be saying please take this site out. There'll be other people there

saying please put my site in and we need to be aware that that often happens and

that may well happen to us. What I just wanted to add wasn't mentioned by Andrew

was that there needs to be a final vote to adopt the plan by the council and we

are hoping that that will happen while this council still exists by March of

2028 but if it doesn't that vote I understand can be taken by the new

authority that succeeds us Gloucestershire Council.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:39:30

I think we now have Mickleton coming up.

So there is Kevin Fletcher and Andy Crump who would like to come first.

Public Speaker - 0:39:51

Yes, Kevin Fletcher, the Mickelton Parish Council.

I've got two questions.

The first one, given that the massive increase in housing plan for Meckleton is predicated

on a significant investment in infrastructure and that previous promises of infrastructure

investment in the village have failed to materialise, can you give a categoric assurance that the

necessary level of infrastructure will be put in place before the housing is developed

and not subsequent to it.

And the second question, has consideration been given to the creation of a continuous

primary route from Broadway Road through to Stratford Road, linking the two proposed development

sites to the west and north of the village, which would assist in taking traffic away

from the high street and avoiding the creation of a potentially dangerous rat run through

the estate roads between the two sites.

If so, what were the conclusions?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:41:18

Thank you for that.

and I think we'll have the other Mickleton thing,

and then, because it often works better

to have both your answers and Crump.

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:41:46

Thank you, Chair.

First question, given that infrastructure gains from Meikleton will only have a marginal

impact in respect of its poor sustainability ranking as a principal settlement, on what

basis is it considered appropriate or proportionate to sanction increasing the population to some

5 ,000 residents over twice the present level and of that of its nearest township in Camden?

And in circumstances where such widespread development will have a negatively transformative

impact upon the settlement. Second question, the lack of any Regulation 18

consultation in relation to the Council's new strategic development

proposal for Meckleton renders the draught local plan susceptible to legal

challenge on the basis of a lack of soundness. And so I have to question

whether the Council can resolve the position accordingly by pausing the

19 stage in order to rectify the emission or run the risk of incurring

additional costs and delays down the track during examination in public. Thank

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:42:58

Officer - 0:43:00

you. Thank you Andrew. Would you like to respond? Okay thank you. So I think

there's roughly about four questions. If I maybe do the last point first. There's

to do a Reg 18 which includes any policies or sites at all and lots of

councils do and it's helpful but there's no requirement to do that it would be

entirely reasonable for a council to do an issues and options consultation early

in the process is a relatively high level that doesn't include any proposed

policies or sites and then go straight to Reg 19 they would be if they were to

do that they would be perfectly within the bounds of the planning regulations

so there's no requirement to do any additional consultation at all according

to the planning system. Pausing would effectively prevent the council from

submitting a planning time they would have to start again as Councillor

Efry was saying a moment ago that would be at least a five -year delay

where the area is susceptible to piecemeal and speculative

developments. In terms of the specific highway point if I may I think that's a

point we probably need to take away and come back to. In terms of infrastructure,

in terms of guaranteeing infrastructure delivery, the strong by far the strongest

mechanism available to the council to assist with delivery infrastructure is

having an up -to -date local plan. Not having an up -to -date local plan will

leave the council vulnerable to speculative development where it's much

more difficult to deliver infrastructure effectively and we can see lots of

examples in lots of places around the country where areas have been inundated

with development that hasn't been effective delivery of infrastructure

that could be extremely harmful. I think a lot of people would say well we don't

want housing but the next thing is probably don't want housing without

infrastructure so if if we have to have some housing it's better to plan for

infrastructure as effectively as we can do. And in terms of sustainability I mean

that might be something that we I mean that's probably something that needs a

fuller discussion. I think we have to be mindful of how planning inspector would

look at this and you know a settlement that is less than sort of circa three

miles from a sizable town, an employment area and a railway station and is

relatively unconstrained which can have new sort of services and facilities

delivered in a national planning policy context would be deemed to be

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:45:39

sustainable. Thank you. I'm not sure I understand there's quite a few people

really struggling to hear particularly Andrew it's it's we have tried to put

the volume up it doesn't seem to have made a huge impact.

agree.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:08

Oh, sorry.

While we resolve that and discuss it, Mike, you're very welcome to come and sit in the

middle here.

Maybe it's certainly not terribly easy to hear.

I have an advantage being up here, but I know that I can hear from the signals that people

are struggling behind.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:46:24

Can I – while you resolve that, Chair, can I just follow up?

And I think it was Andy who met from Meikleton, made the point about the lack of regulation

18 second regulation 18 consultation in an ideal world we would have done that

but we don't live in an ideal world the council said a year ago that we wanted

to update our local plan and we knew the timetable we have was a year and a half

and I'm sure you will have had a chance to see the volume of documents that have

to be there for the regulation 19 there wasn't and there wasn't time to do

another Regulation 18 consultation, we would not have

been able to do that and then deliver a Regulation 19

consultation in the timescale.

So that's the reason.

I do accept that that would have been preferable, but it just

wasn't deliverable.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:47:16

All right.

Well, thank you.

I'm sorry for those who have been.

Do you think the sound volume is a little bit better now?

We have been trying to put it up, but it's not.

Can you hear?

It requires us for Andrew to speak a little louder.

You're not even a member of the group.

We can hear you, we can hear Mike,

we can hear everybody else, we can hear the speakers,

we just can't hear Andrew's voice.

It's a lovely voice but it's quite quiet.

Right, okay, well then can I now call up

Eileen Bavari, of Morton, please,

and to be followed by William Hathaway,

and I'm sure Andrew will make a note

to try and project a bit more strongly.

Public Speaker - 0:48:02

Eileen Viviani -Morton.

Without understanding developments in the context of the unitary area and emerging spatial

economic and development strategies, can ONS be satisfied that this local plan is feasible

in respect of the lasting significant impact on the people and land of Borton in Marsh

of 2000 plus houses. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:48:31

Thank you very very short and to the point and directed so I thank you very

much for that I know how long strong you feel about these things. Right if you can

just give your name and Morton. Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:48:53

William Hathaway, Mortimer Marsh.

Given that the council's commission transport study

appears to identify and support a more direct strategic route

to the east of Mortimer Marsh,

why has the draught local plan adopted a different,

more constrained alignment between the business village

and the sewage treatment works,

which appears to have emerged following the approval

of the housing development to the east

of the Cotswold Business Village,

which was not defended at appeal

by the council following original refusal.

What evidence demonstrates the revised route remains the optimum safe and

deliverable strategic solution for Moreton in Marsh? Additionally there seems

to be contradiction in the documents of whether the link road is a bypass or

isn't because the strategic so the transport study seems to suggest it's a

bypass to take traffic off the trunk road which is the Fosse Way but the local

plan seems to downplay its significance as a linking a state road. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:49:50

Officer - 0:49:53

Right, Andrew, thank you.

I'll try again with the volume.

Is that any better?

Yes.

Is that okay?

All right, so in relation, I think the main point here is about the alignment of the road.

The master plan and the road alignment in the illustration, they are illustrative and

indicative.

So they're not in pretend, you know, they're not proposed as the definitive

alignment, they are indicative. It would be quite normal to have much more

detailed work happening after a plan is adopted should the plan be adopted, which

could be several years work before a road of that nature would be delivered.

When there's no development proposed in terms of the strategic sites, none of the

sites are expected to start delivering in the first five years. It's quite

usual for detailed work to follow a local plan allocation. Local plan is

still a relatively high level and strategic document is providing a policy

framework but it's not the end of the storey. There will still be more work to

do. Planning applications will need to go through a detailed process. They will be

informed by considerable detail. So the alignment that we have at the moment is

indicative there's certainly more work to do to finalise precise details of

things like that

Officer - 0:51:28

it's not impossible the drawing is just needs to be changed a little bit

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:51:37

Thank you. I don't know if there's anybody else here who's from one of the strategic sites.

If not, I shall go on to...

I shall not... where she's from, but Lisa Collins is here.

She wants to represent her community. I'm not sure which one it is.

And there's Doug Crook who's from Anthony Cruces.

But is there anybody else from any of the other... the really key strategic sites first?

No? Okay, so Lisa Collins? Thank you.

And if you can let us know where you are from, that would be great. Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:52:20

The water cycle study recalls that this allocation drains to sire ancestor sewage treatment works.

It recalls that the storm overflow there operated 165 times in 2023,

236 times in 2024, and 125 times in 2025.

It rates that works red and answers yes to the question of whether it is above the threshold for investigation.

The study's own definition of a red stating says quote upstream development could further increase the discharge frequency, so

mitigation should be required prior to significant development.

The same study places the site fully within a source protection zone one,

one of only five allocations in the district inside an inner protection zone,

and awards that, quote, in the event of an accident,

widespread groundwater contamination is possible across the entire southern half of the study area.

The housing delivery study says at paragraph 529 that Thames Water may require grampian conditions

where there are infrastructure constraints.

Furthermore, local plan policy EN14 requires that proposals should

not increase flood risk to local communities. The road to Driffield is

impassable several times a year. I'd like to know the assessment of that specific

road and if that was carried out and will the committee recommend cabinet

that a Grampian condition is written into the allocation policy so that no

dwelling of Driffield may be occupied until Thames Walter has confirmed

capacity at Cirencester Works.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

No, you did it easily in the time.

That was very good.

So not to worry.

Oh, some, could we tell, Andrew, we've got to get the, sorry, can we get the mic?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:54:07

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

You're very helpful there.

Thank you.

No, no, you're being very helpful.

Andrew, would you like to respond to that?

This is Driffield again.

Officer - 0:54:16

Thank you.

Okay.

if I'm not talking loud enough,

I'm gonna rely on somebody to just wave at me

and kind of let me know straight away.

That's undoubtedly the case

that more infrastructure improvements will be required

before the sites can deliver.

That's another part of the rationale

for no strategic development coming forward

in the first five years of the plan.

The policy wording should currently,

as currently drafted, should be sufficient

to ensure that development can't come forward without the appropriate infrastructure being in place.

But that is certainly something we can have another look at because that's certainly the intention.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:55:02

Officer - 0:55:19

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:55:45

We are happy that we look at the policy wording, but I think what I am trying to say is the

Okay, wait this is

Do put your certain him forward at some point to become a counsellor and you can do motivating yes, please

Public Speaker - 0:55:56

I welcome your comments good afternoon Doug crook from empty cruces

So it's mentioned throughout a number of the documents about an infrastructure delivery plan

Has that been published because I can find it in a recent download

I've actually got three, but I'll try to do it as two.

Do you believe the step delivery is actually going to be accepted by an inspector?

It's not something we're aware that they are overly keen on this idea of kicking the can

down the road to actually deliver your houses.

And ultimately, this plan, I think most of us would probably like the plan to be in place,

but what you don't want is to get right to the last stop and then it gets kicked out

and we're all up in air, you know.

So there's a balance here between getting a plan through that actually will deliver

for everybody in the Cotswold District area.

I'm going to add a third one on here.

This is a housekeeping type of thing.

This last document is 8 ,000 odd pages long.

I tried scanning some of it in terms of finding some things in it.

It just kills computers.

Can we actually get this subdivided into sort of appropriate sections?

It's just too big to really manage with.

fairly straight simple thing.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:57:12

Yeah, they're mine for now, thank you very much.

Well, thank you for that comment, and I too, I think everybody here has...

And not only that, our computer said, oh, this hurts, because it has been difficult,

and the older computers...

I appreciate the work that you've done to get it, but it's just...

Well, it's something to be considered,

is to somehow make it into more, provide it into more relevant separate documents

Officer - 0:57:44

so that it's not quite so chunky for one thing. Andrew, your response. Thank you.

I mean my understanding is the infrastructure delivery plan is part of

the material that's been made available to councillors. I mean it's probably, I

mean I think this has already been said but it's worth emphasising there will be

a six weeks public consultation. All the documents will be available as part of

consultation and they will all have their own kind of separate links so it

would be possible to see what's available by topic and then look at the

specific documents people are interested in as part of the consultation. The step

trajectory is allowed within national policy. There are other councils that

have adopted this approach. Given the constraints of Cotswold it's considered

to be a reasonable way of striking a balance

between all the different factors

that we need to consider.

Gentlemen saying, you know, that it's important to have a plan,

but we don't want to kind of fail to get over the kind

of threshold through the examination.

So that's why the process is as difficult as it is

with obviously lots of things

which people would probably prefer not to have,

but we have to be careful because if we don't have enough

to satisfy an inspector that it's consistent

with national policy, then that risk of it ultimately failing is greater. I hope that's

Officer - 0:59:10

helpful. It will definitely be part of the consultation, but it should be available now.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:59:16

Thank you. Do we have any other questions? I know we have had three representatives.

If anybody else, you haven't asked the question before,

is there anybody who hasn't asked the question

who would like to?

Sorry, would you like to come here?

Well, we did have 30 minutes allocated,

so look, I get very kind, you're from...

Stand up for it.

No, no, no, because we want you to be recorded

for posterity on our system, please.

And then, Griff, you'll please do.

Public Speaker - 0:59:55

William Hathaway again, Morton and Marsh.

And procedural question maybe, can the new local, sorry,

unitary authority, are they held to our local plan?

You know, let's say it gets adopted pre the transition.

What's the status of that plan when it transitions

across the authorities change?

And that's the end of the question.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:00:15

Thank you.

That's a very good question for those who wanted clarification.

I think actually, Mike,

may you be the best place to answer?

Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:00:22

I mean, I know the answer to.

I'll give an answer and then obviously our planners can give an answer. My

understanding from discussion is that essentially what we're talking about, so

I said earlier, so if we could make this plan and if it goes through all the

stages, whatever it ends up as, following the examination if an inspector is

satisfied that our plan is sound, we will be able to essentially vote as a council

to adopt it. If that happens before March of 2028, that would fall to this council

and then the new unitary authority would inherit it when it takes over from us on

the 1st of April 2028. If it doesn't happen before this council ceases to

exist then my understanding is it's within the gift of the new authority to

adopt it and then from that point to then use it to determine planning

applications in the Cotswold district area. So the new authority may well have

a different plans will have for different areas. Now if Andrew wants to

add anything to that. No, I'm just happy with that.

Alright, thank you. Do come. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:01:27

Public Speaker - 1:01:40

Catherine Kilworth from Driffield. I have two questions.

Your site selection topic paper chose Driffield partly because in its words there are opportunities to establish effective cycling, walking and wheeling connexions to Syrinsester with improved public transport.

Your strategic transport assessment published the same month notes that the proposal for Driffield represents a substantial addition to a small settlement with limited existing services.

It relies on connexions to siren sester for access to key services

Local road connectivity feeds into the a4 1 7 and a for one line network offering reasonable regional road connectivity

But causing a reliance on private cars for daily trips

Active and public transport is limited as the site is constrained by a for one seven along its western border

The same document records that over 70 % of additional trips across district are taken by car

These are opposite findings on the same question by the same authority in the same month one was used to select the site

Which does the council stand behind?

Paragraph 16b of the national planning policy framework requires plans to be aspirational but deliverable

Your evidence says four different things about who will deliver this site the draught local plan of paragraph

6 .31 says it is coordinated across two promoters. The employment land

review says the site has two landowners, is promoted by AJW land and development

and that quote no master planning has been undertaken. The housing delivery

study by Ikeny, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, says quote there is no current

involvement of a promoter or developer and that quote limited reliable

information has been provided on the potential delivery programme or intentions.

Your own site template in the housing land supply topic paper record records for site six Driffield quote

Currently no developer interest has been identified

Will the committee ask officers to reconcile these four statements in writing before Thursday and confirm whether a member

Memorandum of understanding exists for this site as paragraph 3 .8 of that topic paper says the council sought where possible

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:03:58

Thank you

Officer - 1:04:11

Is that working?

Is that all right?

So I mean, thank you.

I think the transfer evidence has to test the current situation before then going on

to consider what would happen with the proposals and with some mitigation.

So it might be worth trying a different microphone, but it might be that you were looking at the

section of the transport study which is looking at what would happen if there isn't any mitigation

rather than the section which is looking at what happens if we deliver all of the mitigation

that we're proposing because those two things would be different.

In terms of the other parts of information, from my point of view, that doesn't sound

inconsistent because as I've said before, we're not expecting the sites to start delivering

until year six onwards.

So there's five years from plan adoption plus the time between now and plan adoption, which

might be another 18 months or so, which is a relatively normal amount of time for a site

of that size to get up and running.

So you wouldn't necessarily expect every site

in a local plan to have a planning application ready

to go tomorrow.

And in some ways, that's better because we

want to plan for these sites properly

and have effective infrastructure delivery.

So the timing doesn't seem unusual to me.

And I would say that isn't necessarily an inconsistency.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:05:50

Right, well, thank you.

and thank you for all the members of the public,

whether they're representing their parishes

or on the parish or town councils.

It really is appreciated.

And I can just say that you're always welcome

to come to overview and scrutiny committees

and put your questions,

it may be on totally different topics,

but it really actually adds

and it's part of the democratic process.

So we're very pleased to see you here.

Obviously, this is just the first stage

of this new local plan.

I'm sure you're going to be following closely

the next set of decisions and developments on it.

but thank you very much indeed.

We will now move on to the members' questions.

6 Member Questions

Do we have any members' questions?

I have Daryl Call, Member for Moreton West.

Please come up and ask your question.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:06:41

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:06:46

Okay, thank you, thank you, Chair.

I'm Darryl Cawl, Councillor for Moreton in Marsh West in the North

Cotswolds and also County Councillor for Moreton, Stowe and the Rissingtons. I've got my

first, I have two questions. My first question is regarding employment land.

Residents of Moreton and the surrounding villages are rightly deeply concerned

that the draught local plan proposes more than 2 ,200 additional homes. The plan

states that around 5 .1 hectares of employment land will be delivered yet

the land is not identified on the indicative master plan while the

proposed housing areas are very clearly shown and can it be explained share how

residents and councillors are expected to assess the deliverability of this

proposal when the location of the the promised employment land remains unknown

unknown can a location be confirmed and whether it replaces the existing

allocation at the fire service College which has not come forward to date and

at what stage would it be identified and secured please that's my first question

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:07:59

Thank You Andrew do you have the answer to that question?

Officer - 1:08:06

There is no employment allocation proposed. Any reference in the

document is just an error in the draught which will need to be amended prior to

the consultation. There was originally an intention to include some employment but

the landowner is unwilling to support that. The site obviously does

include uses that will provide employment but they don't it doesn't

a dedicated industrial site. So there are things like local centres, primary school,

secondary school, etc. So there will be additional employment but there isn't a dedicated area

of employment. Moreton obviously remains one of the larger, more sustainable settlements

in the district which has some existing employment. So it's still considered to be sustainable

overall but the proposal is for housing and various mixed -use elements and

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:09:17

various infrastructure but no specific dedicated employment land. Thank you.

Obviously I do have a supplementary question. I mean obviously that's quite

interesting to hear today. I mean I'm just very surprised I don't know where

2 ,200 homes and the extra people will be seeking employment. I mean is that

really a genuinely mixed and sustainable development or is this simply housing

Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:09:48

allocation then? I'll take that. I mean clearly it's a matter of judgement. I

think the officer has just said is that there were we're looking to see if we

could get more employment land, but if somebody, as in all of these things, if

someone doesn't bring forward the land and doesn't want it used for that

purpose, we are unable to force them to do so. I accept the point.

It would be desirable if there were more employment land in many of our places,

but I do recognise that it's often difficult to get it developed.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:10:21

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:10:24

I believe if I can move on to my second question. Thank you. So my second

question is just regarding we've already heard from a resident regarding the

spine road in Morton. So the local plan update documents identifies this

proposed multi modal spine road I think it's called as vital as supporting

future growth in Morton.

Can the estimated cost of this route be stated please?

Because of course this is gonna be crossing a railway line,

the river even load crossings,

and explain the funding package for this.

Because if housing development's expected to fund it,

what level of developed contributions is anticipated

and what evidence demonstrates

that that would actually be sufficient?

Officer - 1:11:12

The costs are, there are cost details provided

within the supporting evidence.

I believe in indicative terms, I believe the road cost

in total is circa 50 million.

The kind of access that would be expected on a site

is circa 12 million, so 38 is the kind of additional cost

associated with that specific route

with the bridges, et cetera.

We also have some viability evidence which looks at

the likely developer contributions and we also have an infrastructure delivery plan

which looks at other infrastructure requirements and other costs.

So that sort of gets us to a point where we've got a reasonable position for the site being

deliverable but as I said earlier because we do a Reg 19 consultation that doesn't mean

that we stop doing further engagement with stakeholders so there will undoubtedly be

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:12:18

more work needed to continue kind of fine -tuning some of the detail. Thank you

and also is there any evidence to demonstrate that this spine roads would

relieve any of Morton's existing congestion rather than simply servicing

Officer - 1:12:34

the new developments? The evidence shows that the road as proposed would provide

for some improvement. It doesn't have the same benefit as a full link from the

south all the way around the east to the north. So I think if a road could be

delivered that did that, that would be preferred. But the level of development

that could come forward, which is circa 3 ,100, wouldn't be sufficient to deliver

that so that's why there is land to the north which is kind of identified as a

potential longer -term location for development and the route or there's two

routes for an onward extension of the road is safeguarded so I think the

longer -term ambition would always be to try and deliver the full extent of the

road because that would have the most positive impact but at this point I

think a number of people have said at different times the importance of

balancing what's deliverable.

So it's part of that process.

It's necessary to have a level of development

that can support a level of infrastructure

which is deliverable.

And that's where we've got to.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:13:48

Well, thank you.

I don't believe you've had any other members' questions

submitted in advance.

They have to be done before.

If you're a member of the committee,

you do it within the committee, not the, sorry.

Sorry, this is members questions are for members who are not members of this committee.

You have got a much freer reign and a lot of things within the committee time.

Sorry, not to John.

You didn't submit the question before.

It actually has to be done on five o 'clock on the Friday before or by the Chairman's

consent by 9 .30 this morning.

but if I haven't received them before then those are the rules but there will

be other occasions and perhaps at cabinet or at the full council so I'm

sorry that's the rules that's so we now move on to discussing as a committee the

7 Local Plan

local plan so thank you very much everybody for all the answers and

everything else so far as a committee we've been asked to look at the

recommendation that Cotswold District submits this local plan for its six weeks consultation

after which it is submitted to the Government for independent examination and also that

delegated authority is given to the Director of Communities and Place in consultation with

the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning to make any minor corrections prior to consultation

and also following the Regulation 19 consultations to prepare an additional modification schedule

for submission if required.

And finally, notes the technical supporting evidence

in preparation for publication alongside the Cotswold Local

Plan 2026 to 2043 for consultation.

That's the sort of, that is what we're meant to be focusing

in on, the questions about all sorts of things.

But I just wondered whether I need a mic ever meet

or whether Andrew wanted to come in with an introduction

to this item, or even Councillor Layton.

I'm very happy to hear from any and all of you.

Councillor Layton.

Ah, right.

Thank you, thank you.

Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:16:01

So, I hope you all can hear me.

I think I'm fairly loud.

Well, before you, the committee, a huge bundle of papers,

and thank you very much for working your way through as much as you've been able to.

But these will concern the publication of the Cotswold Local Plan for up until 2043

at Regulation 19 stage and the proposed submission to the plan for the Secretary

of State later this year. This is a pivotal moment in the plan -making process.

Regulation 19 represents the final opportunity for the public, stakeholders

and statutory bodies to comment before the plan is examined independently. The

purpose for ONS today is to make recommendations relating to the

for publication of the local plan for consultation

and for submission to the Secretary of State

for examination.

And the local plan will shape development

across the district for the next 17 years

and some more as we've heard.

It'll determine where new homes, employment land,

infrastructure and environmental improvements are delivered

and it will provide the policy framework

that guides improve, guides planning decisions.

Once adopted, it will replace the 2018 plan and become the foundation for substantial growth and place -making in the Cotswolds.

As you know, the plan has already undergone three major consultation stages.

Issues and options in 2022, the draught plan in 2024 and preferred options in 2025.

at each stage has generated significant feedback and Regulation 19

version reflects the engagement alongside updated evidence on housing

need, infrastructure capacity, climate action, ecological recovery and viability.

There are two major critical contextual factors that I'd like to highlight to

scrutiny. First, the national planning reforms. Any local plan not submitted by

2026 must restart under a new system and that would delay adoption by at least three, four or even

longer years.

During that period,

Cotswold District and the New Unitary Authority would continue without an up -to -date plan and remain subject to the presumption in favour of

sustainable development because we cannot demonstrate a five -year housing

land supply. The consequences of that are well known and a lot of us will you know

be very familiar with what has happened in the past with that without having a

land five -year land supply. We get speculative applications, fragmented

development patterns and weaker infrastructure delivery. Second, the

significant increase in assessed housing need following changes from the National

Standard method in 2024. The uplift is substantial but the evidence shows that

local housing pressures are real. The plan sets out how much of that need can

be met within the district's environmental landscape and

infrastructure constraints and where unmet need may need to be identified.

Finally, the recommendations include delegated authority for minor corrections and, if required,

an additional modifications schedule following consultation. This is standard practise. And

I commend the report to the committee and welcome your scrutiny. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:19:47

Thank you for that. It's clearly setting out what we're looking at. On this occasion,

are going to do things slightly differently. I'm going to request each member of the committee

has, can do two questions. What I would really like them to be on is on the local plan as

a whole, as it affects the whole district in whichever way they feel that they would

like to think. And then when we come around to, hopefully there will be lots of time for

lots of questions that you can actually maybe going into your own ward or area or any other

district but it's the actual strategy of what the local plan should be providing

and what is required and any questions you have around that the main

structure of it rather than the individual settlements. This is I think

will be helpful way to make go about it. So I don't know who I know that some

questions have been submitted in advance I also know that John has got some

questions up his sleeve. I also know that Naomi is having to leave earlier and I

Councillor Naomi Bloomer - 1:20:46

know if you would like to ask a question before you leave. Thank you so much chair.

Everyone hear me is that all right? Good. I hope that this all these two

questions will be submitted under that those applications. First of all and

thank you so much for all the information it's really been very

interesting reading it. I'd like to ask that following the debacle in nursery

Road Park in South London where environmental factors to

encourage the well -being of residents including like wisteria, the pergolas

were built and contained by the community for such a long time. The

police came and removed these beautiful flowering plants because there was

concerns about antisocial behaviour. I ask that while antisocial behaviour is

considered and planned for, that the plan allows for beauty and joy within all

these beautiful use items that we're hopefully going to have.

Secondly, I may have missed this in the report. I haven't seen any consideration

for the building and maintenance of religious spaces. Where is this? Has it

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:21:57

been considered and under what data? Thank you. Thank you. I think that's a very

interesting comment on the religious spaces because I didn't spot anything on

either and it's obviously a strong part of the community. So who would like to

Officer - 1:22:16

answer that please? Thank you so I think there's two basic questions. I

think the kind of designing development to avoid the risk of antisocial

behaviour that is primarily through the kind of design of the actual scheme at the time

through the development management process.

So we have design policies and the intention is to have an updated design code as well.

So it's essentially through the policies that we seek to ensure that we end up delivering

good quality design and good quality design should take those factors into account.

In terms of planning for specific kind of religious spaces, we would expect, ordinarily,

we would expect the kind of religious organisations to tell us that they have a need for something

which can then be taken into account.

But if they haven't done that and there's a need, that doesn't mean it can't be considered

because as I was saying, the application process will still be quite long for certainly the

strategic sites and there will be more consultation including at local level

you know with parish councils etc so if things things like that materialise

there's no reason this it's not too late for things like that to be considered

the strategic sites would need to provide for some community type

facilities so there would be flexibility that that could be considered as part of

process.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:23:51

Thank you, well I know I was I said it's not essential but I just think it's

helpful to have the overview of the local plan. So I think Councillor Waring,

yours is more specific to Borton on the water. No it's going to be but it has a

Councillor Jon Wareing - 1:24:16

relevance beyond it. Okay I get it, that's him and I won't forget you. Thank you chair.

Councillor Claire Bloomer - 1:24:19

Yeah I really want to thank the officers and the you know the members that have

been involved in this plan you know before I became a councillor I remember

a council without a plan which was quite a scary time but you know it is a real

concern for residents and I think it's something that's very much needed. I know

there are many councils are unable to deliver a local plan so I am pleased

that our council is doing this. There is just an overall comment about the plan

and the consultation that will take place. Obviously there's going to be

two of these I believe and I just wondered for those that might have

accessibility issues, may have language barriers or difficulties, will there be

any additional support to kind of go through those with those individuals

that might just need that little bit more assistance.

You know, possibly people maybe in wheelchairs

that can't access places, maybe are not online.

So I just wanted to put that out as well.

Thank you.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:25:16

So maybe if I could pick that up.

So there's going to be four exhibition events

across the district, two in the south and two in the north.

And then we're planning meetings for, as I said,

people who live in the localities of the strategic sites.

but maybe if I can ask our Head of Communications just to follow up on the

point about access for all that that Councillor Bloomer has made about whether

in terms of what provision we are making we do make we will make to make sure

that everyone who wants to have their say when we get to the regulation the

consultation can have their say.

Officer - 1:25:55

Thank you Councillor Evermy, thank you for the question Councillor Bloomer. For those

of you that don't know me, I'm Matt Abbott, Head of Communications at Cotswold District

Council. We're taking it into consideration as much as we possibly can. The venues that

we've booked for exhibitions we'll be visiting to make sure that we maximise accessibility.

We're conscious that across the district there are a lot of people who don't have access

or online access or find online access more difficult. We took that into consideration

at the Regulation 18 stage of the consultation there,

and we'll take the learnings from that into Regulation 19.

So we're looking at ways that we make consultation

more user -friendly, and we'll be engaging town

and parish councils to ensure that they support

in getting the collateral out to members of the community

on the ground that we find harder to reach

as a district council.

And I'm also taking the points

about the density of information.

So we'll look at how we provide that

in the most accessible way possible to. I'd not consider things like translation

but we can absolutely take that away.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:27:03

Councillor Jon Wareing - 1:27:05

Thank you. Councillor Waring. Thank you chair. Before I ask my questions I'd like to make

a point that the local plan is really considering the impact of infrastructure

demand from four sources so there's imposed development of housing which is

the major one I guess but there's economic growth in terms of employment

this town centre activity in terms of retail and there's also visitor activity

tourism and I'd like to welcome three important acknowledgement in the local

plan that we've received the plan on page 50 or page 19 of chapter 2

recognises one tourism can have adverse impacts on residents daily lives to

Two, tourism must be managed, not simply promoted.

And three, managing sustainable tourism

is a strategic planning objective.

I also welcome the fact that in relation

to the Cotswold Lakes, which is page 131,

or page 99 of chapter six,

the council explicitly acknowledges

that increased visitor numbers have created concerns

for residents and has responded

by introducing planning policy to address these concerns.

Over a number of years now, I've been told repeatedly that there's very little the district

council can do to address the consequences of exceptional visitor pressure in a number

of locations, including my own ward.

If the council considers exceptional visitor pressure to be a strategic issue, certainly

in the Cotswold Lakes, that affects the long -term sustainability of places, then the local

plan is the principal mechanism through which that issue should be recognised and addressed.

Yet unlike the treatment of the Cotswold Lakes where the plan explicitly recognises increased

visitor numbers have raised concerns and response through Core Policy 18, the plan contains

no equivalent policy approach for settlements such as Boughton on the Water or indeed Bybury,

where visitor pressure places sustained demands on infrastructure beyond its current carrying

capacity. This is of interest for every place across the Cotswolds. We hear people talking

about the requirement for infrastructure before all of these developments go ahead. We are

looking at a situation in some locations where our capacity is already over capacity. My

questions are these. Can a local plan legitimately recognise tourism as a strategic challenge,

recognise visitor pressure as a planning issue in one part of the district, yet fail to provide any equivalent planning policy or framework for the district's most heavily visited settlements.

Secondly, if the local plan is prepared to recognise and plan for infrastructure presses arising from strategic housing growth in Moreton, for example,

Why does it not adopt an equivalent strategic planning approach for settlements such as Borton, or indeed others,

where exceptional visit to demand has become the principal source of pressure on our infrastructure?

I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:30:25

Thank you for that. I think we all know that tourism is one of the lifebloods of the Cotswolds,

but it also causes a lot of problems in certain settlements.

who would like to go first on answering that relevant for local plan?

Officer - 1:30:45

Thank you. I mean if I may I think I will give a short answer but then suggest

that we follow that up with a written response if that's okay. I mean there are

a number of policies which seek to make some contribution to this point but on

and there are limits to what the local plan can do. So in terms of the last

point around delivering infrastructure where there is development that's

something the local plan is seeking to do but in terms of you know delivery

mechanisms for delivering infrastructure in locations where there isn't

development that's somewhat more difficult and there are limited options

for how a local plan could address that. But if I may I'll suggest that we

respond to that with a written response.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:31:35

Let me just say something. I just want to acknowledge the point that John's made.

I mean clearly, you know, we've had a few discussions about that in various

meetings and he is a very eloquent champion for his community and for other

communities that have volume visitors and you know I understand the

issues, the challenges that people in Borton face from discussion with John

and residents in the village.

I think, yeah, we, obviously I probably ought to say

that I'm actually a resident in the Cosworth Lakes area.

I didn't read it quite how you did, John.

But I think there was obviously historic policy around that.

But I think let's see what we can do to strengthen the policies

within what the local plan can do.

I think I totally accept your point you're making

that if this is our sort of blueprint

for how we want our district to be,

We don't want, we want the lives of people in Borton and other places like

Bybury and others to be improved and not to have the challenges that they

currently face and if there's anything we can do within the local plan to do

that let's have a look at it. That's part of, yeah, but we'll obviously see what we

can do.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:32:50

Thank you for that.

It's Laura, please.

Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson - 1:32:55

Thank you very much.

My two questions are both based around infrastructure.

I wanted to pick up on something that was said earlier about the transport routes

and the transport planning being indicative.

I think probably all of us as councillors have heard time and time again that people are prepared

to accept development if it comes with the infrastructure.

I'd like to know what more detail we can put around transport to reassure residents and

give them the confidence that these routes will materialise because the other thing is

that people say they're promised, the houses go in, the infrastructure doesn't follow.

So I'd just like to see a bit more detail around that being delivered.

The second thing I would like to ask relates to storm overflows and water, which is obviously

very topical issue. I've spent time visiting Wessex Water in Tepary so I

can't speak for Thames Water, I haven't visited one of their sites, but my

understanding of one of the constraints that they have is not so much the

dirty water coming from our homes but it's the addition of the rainwater

runoff which then overwhelms the system. What more can we do to encourage better

design within the local plan to make sure that the existing infrastructure

isn't overwhelmed and that we're doing better to make sure that that water is

either stored and reused or that it's not going through with domestic dirty

water.

Officer - 1:34:31

Please let me know if you can't hear me. In answer to the first question, the

The master plans in the plan are indicative, but the policies that sit

behind them, which require certain levels of infrastructure to be provided, whether

it be roads or schools or new local centres, that's not indicative. That

forms part of the policy. So by way of example, if the plan goes through

examination is adopted and each of those strategic sites has a detailed plan as

to what needs to be delivered to support that level

of housing development and other development.

Should we receive a planning application

which doesn't include that infrastructure,

then we are in a far stronger position to resist it.

So although the plans are indicative

and the lines of roads, as Andrew has said,

for example, aren't, we don't know yet

where the line of the road will actually go

because that would be the subject

of a planning application detail

or outline planning application in the future.

It doesn't mean that the infrastructure will fall away

because we have an indicative plan,

because the wording of the policy will be paramount.

So I hope that helps with that answer.

With regard to storm overflow issues, absolutely.

And there is a historical problem

with surface water drainage getting into those facilities

and causing all sorts of problems.

Some of those we won't be able to address

in new development.

development. Now roads and the way development is actually built out are covered by building

regulations and also by what will be at one point the unitary authority as highway authority.

So we would look to colleagues and experts in those areas to help with the actual details

of construction. We also have drainage staff that would be talking about and giving advice

on sustainable forms of drainage as well.

So there will be lots of people at the application stage

and build out stages who have the expertise to do what we can

to ensure that infrastructure which is constructed is

up to an appropriate standard.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:36:46

I know that Laura's got a supplementary,

but Mike would like to come in first and then.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:36:53

Follow on.

I think in terms of council, it wasn't a really good question

about transport infrastructure.

I would if you were talking to residents in Tethbury, I think you could point out to them that you know

Where we have a local plan site in Sire ancestor that has funded the upgrade to the fire station

Roundabout that has funded the left turn lane at the bottom of the first way that has funded a school hall in my ward for

Children to start school there from the development. That's planned development

You know as a Tethbury councillor the accounts the many of the developments in

The town has experienced the under -resourcing in terms of infrastructure as a consequence.

That is why we are doing a local plan.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:37:38

Did you want to do your supplementary now?

Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson - 1:37:43

This might already be covered in the document, apologies if it is.

What size does the applicant, what size of development does the applicant take responsibility

for that infrastructure?

you say it is covered off at the application stage, but I think there is a likelihood that

they could say that is not my responsibility, that is for a bigger development or a bigger

developer or for someone else to do and can pass the buck?

Officer - 1:38:07

The way we would deal with that is any permission would be the subject of a section 106 legal

agreement and that would incorporate all the triggers. So the common way of doing that

is that you would have say 200 occupations would trigger a certain level of infrastructure,

500 and other level etc etc and that would be set out in a legally binding

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:38:33

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:38:38

document. Thank you. Councillor Cunningham, David Cunningham, next. Thank you chair.

I don't know whether I should turn around to talk to you or face you or face the front or

you probably better look at the back of my head than anything else.

My question is really, number one, excellent job.

It really is a great piece of work and you've obviously done a lot of, put a lot of effort

into it, so well done.

There's some really good things in there that I think are very aspirational around building

standards, around things like protecting the landscape through policies like dark skies,

which for the rural ends of the villages are really quite important.

Section, policy 63 about managing flood risk will be very welcome to be seen by a lot of

that are suffering the effects of climate change now, rather than in 50 or 100 years

when people expected them to.

The two things that I get asked all the time, three things I get asked all the time, why

are you a West Ham supporter?

Difficult to answer that.

The second one is, we want to have more homes, but can we make sure that we have homes that

are affordable for local people?

And the last one is, can we please make sure, and this is going to sound very repetitive,

that we do get the infrastructure put in place.

Now I had a look at Moreton only because it's up the road from me, and the impacts of what

will happen at Moreton will be felt in fossil trilogies, basically.

There is a feasibility report, and I absolutely understand that it's high level, I understand

that it's blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But the 17 million pounds of raw costs for the spinal road that goes up to the A44, plus

the pro -rata additional professional costs I made came up to 35 million for that spinal

road.

Rough estimate, but we're working about numbers now, so we can just use it for play.

Our serial formula, I think, is 100 pounds per square foot -ish.

And the average home on a big estate like that is around 100 square metres.

So you're talking about 10 ,000 pounds, so there it is, per home, in sill, from the developer.

Now 2 ,200 homes in Morton, but 40%, we're not going to have any sill because we want

them to be affordable, so they come off.

So that's 1 ,300 homes, that's 13 million in sill we'll get from that development.

Okay, absolutely infrastructure first, it's the heart of everything we do, I love it to

bits, but we need to find the money.

Now there's a 22 million pound gap just on these estimates of just one little road.

And personally, if you know where that road's going, you're talking about putting a roundabout

to the east of the FOSS, you want the road to come off of there, within less than half

a mile, you want it to climb over 5 .1 metres to clear the railway line, then clear the

river, then clear the floodplain, and then come back down in time to get into the estates.

I mean, that's not, that doesn't look like 35 million pounds worth of infrastructure

development to me. I'm not an engineer, I'm just saying, just putting it out there. So,

S106, we'll go down the S106 route and we'll say, you need to pay for this phase delivery,

You can't have that unless you give us this money to make that good.

We're going to get challenged, right?

We're going to get challenged on this.

As we've seen them do before, we've seen them already do it on the Bloor Homes.

We've seen them look at the conditions we've put on and they come back and they say,

well, you know, and if they do come back with a financial viability assessment,

which I had to look up, but was on the MHCLG site,

They can use that to back up a Section 73 amendment and start to say, well, your phase

delivery is all well and good, but we don't really want to get involved in that just now

because it makes our developments unviable. I'm going to get to a question anytime soon.

So we can go to Holmes England to get some money. We can ask them, we're going to do

this but the reality is that Homes England have quite strict cost -benefit

analysis done when they do it. A two and a half kilometre road with 2 ,200 houses

they're going to get much bigger bang for their buck on the M5 corridor right

so are they going to give us the money? I don't know. County? Well ask the woman next to me

if you like but we're talking about a small road a small number of houses in

a very big County are they going to spend 22 million? I don't know.

I don't know.

I wonder if I could.

We could go to the Public Works Loan Board.

Now if anyone wants to catch David Stanley before he passes out.

A £22 million loan over five years means he's got to find £2 million for the next

15 years every year to service the debt, including £9 million of interest.

It just doesn't add up, does it?

To me it doesn't add up.

So we've got to start to set the terms of this stuff now.

We've got to start to put this in.

I'm very pleased that you're saying that that's what we want to do in infrastructure.

Because if not, I didn't realise this was in there, but in the MPPF, exceptional circumstances

mean that the developer can come and say, they told us to get involved in this development,

we started to get involved, and all of a sudden, like it has in Stratford, the ring rope goes

from 75 million to 150 million.

They can then claim that we have misled them.

Suddenly we're back to appeal, suddenly a Section 73 says we're going to be phased.

And for no fault of their own, the people of Morton and Fossefidge get caught in this

viability trap.

We get caught with more houses, more cars, more people, no road, no schools, but a very

nice cul -de -sac when they fill in M19A and M19B, which are the two plots of land that

go from the Fosse to the railway line.

Please tell me, please tell me that we know how to stop them doing this.

So that's my question.

Officer - 1:44:53

Officer - 1:44:58

Thank you.

I think part of the answer is some of the information I provided to a different person earlier.

I think the figures I suggested were circa 50 million, where 12 million,

The cost of the sort of standard access about 12 million the additional is about 38

So that's not a million miles from you or 35

But if the if there is seal there would also be section 1 6 so it wouldn't be just the seal

Contribution there will be section 1 is its contribution as well so the total contribution will be significantly more than

10 ,000 per home because every section 1 6 as well as seal

The seal charges schedule will need to be updated over the next 12 months or so for consideration after the local plans adopted.

And what is usually the case is that strategic allocations would be zero rated for seal.

So the strategic sites wouldn't contribute seal, they'd contribute section 106.

and evidence from elsewhere suggests that that overall it's possible to

collect more contributions via the section 106 route in that sort of

context so the contribution from the developer would be we can expect to be

significantly more than the figures that you suggested however that doesn't mean

that there wouldn't be advantage in having some additional funding and I

think I said earlier in a number of different contexts because we have a

reg 19 consultation doesn't mean we suddenly stop engaging with all the

various stakeholders that we need to do that but I think ultimately it's it's

quite correct you know it is it is right for the council to try to optimise

infrastructure delivery as far as possible because in the absence of the

plan the scenario that you described is quite likely to happen so unfortunately

we don't have a choice between having the choosing to have a plan or not and

if we don't have a plan have nothing if we don't have a plan we would almost

certainly get housing without infrastructure so the best option we

have is to have a plan which is as strong as we can make it which seeks to

provide infrastructure as effectively as possible which is what the council are

trying to do and if so if we're concerned that there's a risk we might

end up with housing without infrastructure that is the most likely

that would happen in the absence of the plan being ultimately adopted so you're

right to say that there's you know it's not easy but what's proposed at the

moment is not unreasonable and there's still opportunity to kind of fine -tune

some of the detail

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:47:46

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:47:47

So, this one's a bit longer.

So, what I was thinking of, I had to look this up as well.

So Swindon got kippered with one of these things and a place called Fox Bridge got built

without the infrastructure because they said the infrastructure load was too high.

But what happened afterwards is that they went into a multi -agency delivery agreement.

And if we were to introduce now within the local plan a district -wide strategic site

infrastructure gateway clause that supplements like Policy 21 for Moreton that says if you

want to be part of this development, you need to enter into one of these multi -agency agreements

that's with Home's England and with the county and with the FT and all the others.

So at that point the developer can't then say later on, oh they were unreasonable, I

want to launch a section 73, because they've signed up to agree that actually recognises

there's going to be this infrastructure charge coming forward.

And unless they're prepared to go through that gateway and sign that agreement, then

they can't be party of the development.

Is that something we can add in?

Can we add that as possibly a recommendation for cabinet

to consider?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:49:14

Officer - 1:49:16

Who is it who'd like to pick that up?

Andrew.

We could certainly give some consideration to it.

But the other thing to say is that the planning inspector

can recommend modifications.

So if through the examination the inspector felt that the policy wasn't sufficiently clear

or there was some element of delivery the inspector wasn't sufficiently comfortable with,

they could, it's within their gift to sort of recommend a modification to the policy.

So they could add something along those lines through the examination if they thought that was appropriate.

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:50:00

I'm just saying maybe we could consider that as being a recommendation if we get the right

wording for it, that it's something that the Cabinet can consider and that it can go into

the Reg 19 wording. Because I think it's much easier for us to put this sort of gateway

in with these sort of multi -agency agreements now so that the Inspector can see them and

can utilise them when they're looking to enforce infrastructure, rather than trying to do it

at the planning stage, when we can be challenged, I think, more easily.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:50:31

That's it. I'll shut up now.

No? I think well done doing all that research, and I think they're very interesting points,

and I think it will be taken on board, so we'll come to those again later.

I've got Claire Turner, please.

Councillor Clare Turner - 1:50:49

Thank you, Chet. I'd like to echo what colleagues have said about thanking the officers

for the huge amount of work and effort that's gone into this.

It is phenomenal what goes into the creation of a plan.

I'd also like to thank the members of the public that came

and asked really splendid questions that were very insightful.

And some of the... I've got two questions.

One is around kind of process and one's policy related.

So in terms of the process, some of the feedback I've had already

from residents is around not feeling like their comments

were necessarily heard fully from the Reg 18

and also pointing out things that they think are factually incorrect.

So I wondered if you could, you touched earlier on how the information from the Reg 19 will be used.

But firstly, if residents or councillors feel that there is something factually incorrect or an error in it,

is the Reg 19 the correct place to report that back or is there another channel for reporting sort of those factual information type things?

Secondly, you touched on earlier this idea that the Council considers the consultation

responses and may recommend additional modifications which can be submitted alongside the local

plan in case they may assist the inspector in page 7 of the document. I wonder if you

could tell us a little bit about what is the threshold for that sort of change, what kind

of issues or information would lead to an additional modification. What is the bar that

we would need to cross to make that kind of a change or addition?

And the second question around policy is related to affordable homes and understandably today

we have been very focused on these big strategic sites and that is rightfully so. Indeed in

reading the documents, that was often the focus for me, trying to fully understand what

the impact was there. But there's still a huge amount of the district that's not in

those kind of strategic site areas who have a lack of affordable homes. And if I've read

it correctly, and again, there's a lot of information, so I may have got this wrong,

only developments with more than 10 dwellings, I think it is, have to deliver anything affordable.

So is there anything else that we could be incorporating into our plan that

would really help support those smaller settlements, not seeing you know one -off

huge developments where actually something very useful for the local

community in terms of a small number of affordable homes could be built instead.

Is there anything policy wise that we're missing the opportunity to include here?

Thank you.

Officer - 1:53:39

For me, pick up the last point first.

I think somebody else talked about affordable housing earlier,

which I don't think I addressed at the time.

I think the 40 % of the proposed allocations in the round should deliver the affordable housing need in full,

thereabouts.

That's quite a helpful thing for a local plan to do

for all the reasons that you and others have talked about.

The local plan also, I'll just say this

because it relates to a question somebody else

said earlier which I didn't answer.

The local plan also will increase the proportion

of smaller dwellings, sort of two, three bedroom homes

which helps to improve the affordability of housing

In addition to the specific housing that's designated as affordable

There are I think approximately 33 non strategic allocations which are kind of

Up to about 150 homes the majority are under 100 in

Other locations across the district so they that is where there is some contribution to affordable housing in a number of other settlements

That's the main sort of place where the plan makes a contribution beyond the

larger sites. But that's kind of limited by what is possible in those

places because we're obviously not supporting sites in any of those

settlements which are not considered to be suitable or in high landscape

sensitivity etc. So there's a kind of a balance. But it's possible for

communities to promote small affordable housing schemes

through a neighbouring plan if they wish to.

And there's a policy which will support

rural exception site for smaller affordable housing schemes

where there's a local housing need subject to there being

a site that's suitable, that kind of thing.

Moving back to the other things,

the additional modification,

basically an additional modification is something like

a factual error or a typo or a sort of clarification or maybe a small change to supporting text.

A main modification is something which affects planned soundness and the simplest way of

explaining that is if we're sort of trying to rewrite a policy and fundamentally change

how a policy works, that's not an additional modification.

That will be a matter for the planning inspector.

But if the community have a look at the Reg 19 and find something which they think is

wrong in supporting tax and they want to tell us there's no reason that that

seems to me that that is likely to be the kind of thing the council could

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:56:28

propose an addition as an additional modification right we work in have a

break and in there he's got to leave well we're gonna have a break now to

almost on the two hours so it's a break to have drink refreshment whatever else

you might need. The members of the committee, I'm going to ask you to go to this room,

yeah, and the rest of the public you can be. Oh, she would not go there, sorry, I got the

wrong ones. Members of the public are going there. We are going to go around out to the

7 Local Plan

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:56:57

kitchen and onto that, and sorry, I don't know very much, if everybody feels a bit rested

off that break or had a bit of a refreshment. I do want to just remind people to please

to be quiet while people are asking their questions and hearing the answers. It can

be very difficult for other people to listen if there is noise bubbling in the

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 1:57:18

background. So please could you respect that. And now we have Councillor Lisa Spivey.

Thank you, Chair. I have colleagues who have thanked officers and members of the

public and parish counsellors for coming along today and huge amounts of work

done and I will try to constrain myself to two questions and I might use a David

Cunningham book and try and yeah exactly and then add a question on at the end.

Okay so the first one actually is very very simple and then I'll put

everything together. So the first question is and I think it goes back to

Councillor Turner's previous point around Regulation 19 and just to get

absolute clarity that once we have or once the council if it so chooses to put

this plan forward into the public domain and consult on it, that thereafter any changes

to that document are going to be small and they are going to be of the type of factual

changes, typos, things like that. So at that point it will not be possible to remove or

reduce any allocations in the current plan we have seen before us today? That is my first

question. I want absolute clarity on that. It is somewhat parochial, but it is also for

the whole district. The reduction or removal of any sites at Regulation 19 post consultation

is not going to happen. Therefore, what council should it be the council's desire to approve

on the 12th of August, which goes into the public domain,

is what will go to the Inspectorate.

Officer - 1:58:57

Question one, and then I'll ask my second question, if I may.

We're going to remember to switch the microphone

after moving the microphone.

So the Reg 19 is the document the council intend to submit.

And so once they publish it, that's the document that's submitted.

The council can prepare additional modifications, but they are really just

to assist the inspector should the inspector find them helpful.

Once the plan is submitted, it's for the inspector or maybe there'll be two inspectors.

It's for the inspectors to decide

if modifications are required what those modifications are.

those modifications would be subject to another six weeks consultation but that

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 1:59:47

would be later in the process. Thank you. I think that I think what you're saying

to me is that for example the strategic site south of

Driffield or the 1658 houses in Downhampton would not be able to be

reduced or removed at Regulation 19 point? Just for absolute clarity.

Officer - 2:00:09

That's correct. I mean, the inspector can make whatever modifications they want to,

whether it's called main or additional, but in simple terms it's easier to think of them

as kind of major or minor changes. But obviously the inspector is trying to only make changes

where they think it will make the plan sound.

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:00:30

Thank you for that clarity. Then I move on to what could be construed or seen as a number

of slightly rhetorical questions, if I may. I will put them into one. I start with where

we were given this and where government actually started on local plans and housing numbers.

This was, I think, the government would be very clear about the delivery of more homes,

in particular affordable homes.

Part of the reason the Cotswolds was allocated such a huge number of houses was because we

have across the district a huge discrepancy between the average wage and the average house

price.

I think according to our documents, it is to the region of 14 .5 times the average salary

to buy the average house, which is clearly unaffordable.

So I asked then, you know, for us to think about then whether we really think that this plan is delivering genuinely affordable homes.

And if that is absolutely the prime focus of this plan.

And I think about some of the questions that Councillor Cunningham asked in the way that he posed them, which are around infrastructure and a guarantee.

Because as far as I can see it, I know a lot of ways what this plan does is it

guarantees a lot of houses but it doesn't necessarily guarantee affordable

homes. And then we move on to infrastructure and I think Councillor

Cunningham put it very well and he gave a very thought through example of that. So

what I think that this does in this plan and what I'd like us to reflect on as

ONS, as cabinet and full council, there's perhaps a rhetorical question around do

we think that this plan absolutely guarantees the delivery of infrastructure

and we can talk about roads, schools, GPS, shops, busses, digital infrastructure, sewage

infrastructure and all of these things which go to make really sustainable

communities because what I think we should be doing is building communities

because that's what's really really important and that brings me on to

thinking about and we discussed earlier about what the can what the plan

can meet. I think about what the plan should meet and if that's around housing

numbers and I think then about landscape and character and I think about the

places that I represent and I am going to be parochial because they are small

villages and in the case of Driffield 40 houses it's a hamlet and I ask myself

about whether we are really paving paradise and simply trying to meet a

target, which has been forced upon us, rather than actually building communities and whether

then we are sacrificing the 16 % of the district not in the Cotswold National landscape and

in a floodplain for the 84 % that is. And finally then I ask us to think about, in a certainly

rhetorical way, is this then the plan that we really want? Is this what we think is the

best plan for the whole district? Is this what we want our legacy to be? And I

think about Bybury, not a village that I represent at district level but one

that I represent at county level and the houses that were built several hundred

years ago which people visit, a lot of people visit, sometimes too many, and

because of a small number of workers cottages which were built like I say

several hundred years ago and I'm thinking, does this plan, which we see now before us,

then represent a place which people in a few hundred years' time will come to visit?

And those are the things that are going around in my head and that I am thinking a lot about

and I think that we should all be thinking about.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:04:29

Thank you for that, Pashto.

And unexpectedly, Mike F.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:04:36

Meade would like to respond to you.

Thank you, Lisa, for your words, passionate as they were.

But I understand what you were, you know, the area that you

represent, I know it very well.

So I want to start by answering the question.

I tried to write down your questions as I was, as you were

representing them.

Is it delivering genuinely affordable homes?

I think it's the way in which we can deliver generally

affordable homes.

I think you said the government started talking about that,

but actually what they've given us is an arbitrary target

or any homes.

It isn't specifically affordable homes,

and I think there are those of us that would argue the national

target should be based on affordable,

preferably social rented homes, which as we know in the Cotswolds district are

almost the only affordable homes, but that isn't the target that they've given

us. They've given us a volume target, as you rightly said, based on a metric

around how expensive housing is here in the Cotswolds. So, you know, I totally

agree that the standard number calculation isn't right. As I said in an

answer to an earlier question, we've written three times and the government

is absolutely adamant that they are sticking to that.

The current Secretary of State was the first person I wrote to.

The Housing Ministry has just got promoted, was the last person I wrote to, and they are

both still in post and pushing this policy.

So we live in the world where we have a housing target.

We also have an obligation to deliver a local plan, and I would want to advise members,

and you can cheque this out for yourself, but the government has taken to itself plans to

direct councils if they don't believe that they're moving their local plans on

quickly enough and indeed they did send the housing minister to do that in

Basildon last week. So it's not something that we have total autonomy over. We are

a local authority operating within the laws of the land and we have a

government that clearly wants local plans everywhere based on a housing

target which we don't think is right but we don't have an alternative and three

times they told us you know you need to do a local plan you need to seek to meet

the target which is what our officers have gone away and done. I absolutely

agree with you that we want to build sustainable communities and I totally

understand the circumstances and you mentioned one particular place it is

very small we are talking about potentially an allocation outside of

that it's not enveloping it but I accept that clearly it would change the lives

of everybody that lives in that hamlet if the development were to go ahead as planned.

And I think we're not just trying to meet a target.

We are trying to do what we can, the administration together with the officers, to deliver a local

plan that can meet not just the housing target but lots of the other good stuff that Juliet

and the officers have mentioned around the environment and around our

communities and the infrastructure that they would need and we've talked quite a

bit about that already. So it is a plan which meets the government target. It's a

plan which I believe, obviously we are here to have a discussion and we could

make some tweaks to the plan between now and when it comes to the council next

Wednesday. Fundamentally though, the important, it's only a plan that will

determine whether and enable us to say no to sustainable development if we get

it through the inspector and it's found to be sound. If the inspector

founds that our plan isn't sound and there's plenty of examples that you

members can look up of other authorities that have tried to get plans through

that have been found unsound, then we will leave the legacy that we will leave

if we don't get a local plan adopted or at the point of

adoption before we cease, we'll be specular to development for

probably five more years.

And I think we know, based on our experience 10 years ago,

what that means, what that's meant in Fairford,

what that's meant in Tethbury, what that's meant in Moreton.

The houses went up, but the infrastructure didn't come with

them, and that's what this plan is about stopping.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:09:07

Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:09:11

Absolutely.

So just on a planning side, the planners design or a developer will design, but the planners

aim is to design communities, to design, to get tenure blind in those housing groups.

There will be social houses going up because we've got a good social house provider, we've

got good providers.

But the policies within here in this is not just, yeah, we've got the numbers, but we've

also got policies ensuring that we're going to get good builds, modern building, good

insulation, air source heat pumps, solar panels.

We're going to be green.

We've got all of that in here and also this plan is not only to do with

building X number of houses is also to do with making sure that the ones that we've got are going to be retrofitted

sensibly sensitively and with with there is so much more than just

Housing going on in here David you're making some faces there and you know West Ham West Ham supporter

But I just don't, it's not just putting a lot of houses in areas just because we can.

But designers, builders, and our building control teams want to build good quality communities.

We've got community hubs, we are getting schools.

All the infrastructure that we've talked about today happens.

but on top of that there is the idea of community,

community space, social, employment,

all of those things are in this plan.

It's more than just housing as it stands at the moment.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:11:03

All right, well thank you.

I think Michael Ballon.

Councillor Michael Vann - 2:11:08

17 ,918, that is the housing requirement from the government.

We are offering more 18 ,911 and there's reference to headroom.

Do we really need to go over a very high bar, which we've been set?

Officer - 2:11:47

Thank you.

If I may refer to an answer provided earlier, which I think addressed the same point primarily,

but I think somebody said, forgive me, I can't remember who it was, somebody

said we don't want to go through an examination and then find ourselves

either sort of falling over the last hurdle or maybe having a plan but not

having a land supply that kind of thing. So if we don't have any flexibility that

we risk having a local plan which then doesn't give us the power that we want

to control planning coming forward and potentially back to square one. So it's

It's important that we do try to build in some flexibility because the aim here is to

do all the things that Mike and Juliet have just been talking about and avoid having the

speculative developments.

So as I think I said earlier, planning inspector would normally expect there to be more headroom.

Cart -sword is limited on how much it can do, but not having any at all is a very high risk

Councillor Michael Vann - 2:12:48

approach going into an examination.

supplementary so the government requires a figure I gave 17 ,918 we are therefore

saying that there's a risk that the government appointed inspectors are

going to require a higher figure I know I've read it and I know you asked it

before and I wanted to hear it again. I'm nailing you to the mast on this as to whether

it is necessary.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:13:26

Because I think Andrew's answered the question but Michael maybe if I come in. I think for

me this is, we're going through, you know, this is a very difficult process acknowledging

managing that for us as a council, for our communities,

what we would least want to happen is to get to the end of

it and find that our plan is not found sound.

And that's what our officer's job is to present us with a plan

that they believe they can persuade the inspector to find

is a sound plan so that we can adopt it.

And I think what Andrew has just said is normally they'd be

looking for more headroom than that.

You know, they might want 20 percent.

but that's what we've been able to determine with the proposals that have

come forward. There is a risk that clearly in it if we had a lower figure

if we sort of went bang on if one of the sites was found to be undeliverable that

could jeopardise the whole plan. We've given essentially I think what the

officers have done is given us a little bit of room for something not to go

perfectly as we would like it to. And I think we also need to remember the

five -year housing land supply figure. As Andrew has said about the step trajectory,

there are pretty demanding targets in that those final five years that we've

got to deliver to. So having some ability to deliver them if we're aiming for a

target that's slightly higher so that we can keep our five -year land supply at

end I think is you know is only prudent in the circumstances.

Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:15:07

Quickly in you know thinking about our previous local plan and the ones before

that we were on a 10 % up you know uplift from what the government was saying

just to ensure that we've got that and there are also windfalls that come along

because we were talking about what happens to the villages there are

falls that come along on top of that as well which are kind of taken into

account slightly here but yeah it is it is very important and lots of counts as

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:15:43

you said 20 or 25 percent some of them really go way over to ensure. Thank you.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:15:48

Angus. Thank you very much chair. I note that I've got 17 questions

and I won't be asking them all.

And those are the ones I reduced from the questions

I'd like to ask.

And I think that's a testament to the fact that this is a

massive undertaking that you've done, and therefore there are

potentially a thousand questions that we could be asking.

And we can't.

But I think it's really important that I echo what

others have said, that clearly an immense amount of work,

a great deal of skill, perseverance, and it's not

just the amount, but also you can see how it's intricately interconnected, technically

interdependencies, connexions, and so on. So it's a great work of intellectual effort

that involves a lot of skill. And what it amounts to is the answer of the officers to

a demand, in effect, that the members put to it. The whole council said, we want an

area plan. We've had it taken away. We want a new area plan. We need one in the timeframe.

It's really, really important. And so you've come up with an area plan that meets that.

I'm asking some questions here that are specifically of technical nature, really, that need an

officer response. So in the event we're dealing with a situation where the government has

asked us to do something they should not be asking us to do, everybody has agreed with

This is an unreasonable demand upon this particular district.

We're doing the best we can with it, and this is what we've come up with.

The question I'm asking here is this.

As I look at it, it comes down to a choice between two undesirable options.

And the question is which is worse.

Option one is to accept this plan and go forward.

And the other, the option two, is to refuse this plan and not

present it and not go forward and therefore not have an area

plan until at least 2032, perhaps 2033, who knows exactly

how long, but that sort of period.

So the question I'm asking, and I'm asking it not just for

myself but because a number of people have asked it to me, and

I think it's really important that we make the issue clear,

one way or another.

If we refuse this plan, if we refuse this plan, in effect, I hope that's not a question

that's been given to you.

In effect, if we refuse this plan, we'd be down to the unitary authority to come up with

it and they would be able to do it within the resources of the whole county and all

of the different options that are available

for where it could go.

And as you know, we are an outlier.

We are an outlier in the whole of the south of England.

Under those circumstances, there could be an argument that says,

we would be better off if this agreement that we make bakes

in the numbers that we've agreed up until 2043 and beyond.

Then there could be an argument to say we should not do that.

We should wait and allow the county to come up or the unitary

to come up with a plan taking account of the whole resources

of the whole area.

That would be an argument.

The other one is to say actually that wouldn't be the case,

such and such would happen, you would be able to change it,

you wouldn't have to do the developments that are in the

plan, they could be dropped in the future, or whatever.

So what I'm asking, please, this is my first question,

can you please clarify, what would be your advice on the

lesser of the two evils, taking into account the technical

issues that are involved in this as terms of the options that would be

available to this council and the unitary in handling it into the future

so that we as members can assess the issue properly and also our residents

understand what the nature of the choice actually is for us clearly thank you

Sorry for a long question.

Officer - 2:20:34

I'm more than happy to provide some comments in response to that.

There may well be others who want to comment as well.

I mean, it's very difficult to answer specifically.

I mean, the key risk is the one that I think Mike has talked about,

which is there would be a period of circa an additional five years

where the Council would be more vulnerable to piecemeal spectral development,

where it's much more difficult to plan effectively for all the things the council are trying to deliver successfully.

I mean, I can think of examples in other council areas where a similar situation has occurred,

where the level of development that's come forward in the absence of a plan has been quite substantial,

and the problems of not having effective infrastructure delivery in that time is also quite significant.

If I may be forgiven for just quickly giving one example,

There's an authority where the sort of health provider

responded to a reg 18 consultation

and basically said, in the absence of a plan

for a number of years, and where there'd

been speculative piecemeal development,

there was effectively a gap in funding for local health care,

sort of GP provision, which was equivalent to tens of thousands

of people not having access to local health care.

Because there had been thousands of homes permitted

in a piecemeal, speculative way where it's very, very difficult for the

infrastructure providers to plan effectively for infrastructure. And you

know there are lots of examples of that kind of thing happening in various parts

of the country, so we can't underestimate what the impact would be of that. So I

think in terms of the count all the things various people have said about

you know we want to deliver good quality development, we want to deliver more

sustainable development, meet climate change objectives, deliver ecological

kind of policies etc deliver affordable housing, deliver infrastructure. The only

mechanism available to the council to do those things is to have an up -to -date

local plan. The other side of this is in terms of how would a new unitary

council plan for Gloucestershire as a whole. That's quite difficult to answer

but as I understand it there are a number of authorities across Gloucestershire

who are struggling to make their housing need.

So I don't think it would be safe to assume

that a future unitary council would automatically

expect the level of housing in Cotswold to be less.

I don't think there's any evidence that would support that.

I think planning for housing in other parts of Gloucestershire

is also difficult.

But then the other side of it is,

we found that the level of housing in Cotswold in this plan was deemed to be

more than is necessary in a future plan we could find that actually what that

means is there's just fewer additional sites needed in the longer term but we

benefit from having planned for those sites effectively in terms of planning

for infrastructure so if we want to deliver a new secondary school or we

want to deliver highway improvements we can only do that if we have a plan that

seeks to do that. If we have piecemeal development, it would be very difficult to do that.

Yeah, so I think those would be the sort of key things I think I would say in response.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:23:57

Can I ask a supplementary?

Absolutely, you have two questions at this point. So the supplementary.

The supplementary is the question that there's a question I asked that was not answered and that is

is are these numbers basically baked in to whatever the unitary

would have to build into its plan, or can it start again

with where developments have not taken place?

Could it start again with whatever is the ruling that

might be there with the government of that time?

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:24:35

Dr. Michael Cote -Gottesman If I can pick up a bit, and then you

might add something Andrew so because I'm obviously as the leader of the

council involved in discussions about the unitary council and had some of

these conversations with with officers so essentially everything that we do

hands over to our successes on the 1st of April 2028 and it is our assumption

of the Andrew that essentially that will include our housing targets so the

of Gloucestershire and that will be what sits with the new Gloucestershire

Authority to prepare a plan to. Clearly you know then a future government can

always you know change policy and I think the point that Andrew makes is

that certainly in discussion even if it were to reduce the target overall the

likelihood is that it wouldn't do it by that much.

Historically, that hasn't happened.

And, you know, we need to, and it is a balance.

I wouldn't accept your categorization earlier that it's

an evil because I think there's lots of great stuff

in this plan.

I do accept there's bits in it which probably most,

if not all of us, feel uncomfortable with because of

the impact on some of our communities.

But there's lots of good stuff, I think, which Juliette referred

to, you know, about our environmental standards and things around how we want

our communities to be built into the future. But I think ultimately all we can

do as a council is determine do we think that having a plan is better than not

having a plan. We decided a year ago that it was. Now we've got a plan that meets

the targets. We've got to decide as a council next week is having a plan

better than not having a plan in terms of what you've said.

But I would suggest it absolutely is for the same

reasons that we said it a year ago, despite the fact that I do

appreciate there will be residents in our communities

that will feel that they would rather this plan didn't exist.

But I think the points that I would make to them is,

but we know what happened last time we didn't have a plan,

and communities really had spectre to development as and they got the housing

and they didn't get the appropriate infrastructure it fundamentally comes

back to that do we want to plan the future of our district or do we want to

Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:27:16

let the developers do it for us and what Andrew didn't say was when we started

this as you know with our with our new numbers the government was telling us

that we had a duty to cooperate with all our borders,

so everybody, whether they were in Gloucestershire or not.

So we did that and nothing was forthcoming.

So even if we went to a unitary,

they would not be saying, oh yeah, we've got all this land,

you can put four or 5 ,000 on here.

It doesn't exist.

And they weren't offering it then.

The government has now stopped that duty to cooperate,

but we have kept that in here

because we're working on a bit of safeguarding to show that we have done that.

So that's already in this local plan it's referred to.

Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:28:05

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:28:06

Thank you.

What you did too, well, short, I suppose.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:28:15

I'll ask a question on the supplementary.

Thank you.

Yes, I apologise if I gave the wrong impression when you said the lesser of two evils.

I don't think it's an evil plan.

I think there's very many excellent things within it,

and that's what I meant when I said at the beginning

that such a lot of good work had been done.

So I apologise if that gave the wrong impression.

So my further question is this.

I'm concerned about the cumulative landscape

and community impact.

When you reach a tipping point,

something technically called a catastrophe takes place.

We have many infrastructure issues clearly approaching at or even beyond their tipping points across the district.

Having been the ward councillor for Moreton in Marsh, where we spent a long time, you know,

as the number one receiver of things without a plan, I'm well aware of those kinds of issues.

So we have many of these issues at the moment, and my concern is

this, developers don't fund retrospective problems, but how

do we fund catastrophe prevention when their

development will contribute to or trigger it?

And if a cumulative risk assessment is relevant to flood

management, why is it not relevant to other aspects

of planning assessment?

I could give an example.

For example, RGP practise is already over the top.

There are any one of us would probably be able to give you

examples of catastrophic situations using the term in this technical sense

that we are reaching some sort of tipping point where things just don't

work properly. So how do we handle these cumulative problems under the prison?

Officer - 2:30:25

I think I mean I think to be honest I think the main sort of point that I

could say is really if part of the problem is having a lack of infrastructure

for existing developments, having more development without infrastructure can

only make that problem worse and the mechanism available to us is plan

properly with infrastructure or risk having development without infrastructure.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:30:56

I think I agree. I think that a point that Angus was making is is there

anything we can do and I'm looking at planning officers over there as to the

point that Angus is making about I understand the point that if we put in

more housing and therefore the consequence of that is that we can get

infrastructure like schools and roads and GP facilities. Is there anything

within our AMBI or are there other ways in which we may be able to deal with

some of the impacts that Angus is talking about? I mean obviously one of

the ones that comes to mind is the the traffic on the A429 force way.

I wonder if officers might be able to make a comment on that.

A little out there conferring over there.

Officer - 2:31:53

Helen are you going to be able to give us a...

I'm going to try.

So you're absolutely right, Councillor Jenkins.

We cannot through the planning system retrospectively deal with existing problems.

So we can't expect a developer to contribute to infrastructure to solve a problem that

existed before their development.

Literally it's there to mitigate the impact of the growth and the new development.

Sometimes there are small things around the edges we might be able to do, but the Section

106 is very specific and legally bound to aid development, so that can't assist.

We may be able to do small things around the edges, for example, with community infrastructure

levy, even the neighbourhood contributions might tackle smaller levels of infrastructure,

but it's capital and we can't necessarily create the funds of the scale that we're talking

about.

So if you want additional GPs, hospitals, schools,

those are expensive pieces of infrastructures.

There are limitations within the planning system

to what we can do,

because we are there to make development acceptable

if it can be made acceptable by that infrastructure growth.

So it is very limited what you can do

to retrospectually deal with problems.

But as Andrew very eloquently put it,

it's only gonna get worse if we don't plan for that growth.

But we're mindful of those existing things

and where there are roots that things can happen

and sometimes developers can choose to contribute and resolve problems because it helps them

sell properties, but we can't necessarily through the planning process insist upon that.

Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:33:23

When we have got a local plan and we have got Thames Water, say for example, who we

know what we're planning and that gets into their amp,

so they can then plan ahead because they know what we're

looking at and what the housing numbers are looking at.

And with a bit of luck and a fair wind,

that will solve some of the problems that are going,

you know, that we're already suffering.

But we will have a local plan saying,

these are the numbers, that's what we're expecting you

to do Thames Water or other other water companies are available.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:34:12

Right I've got two questions the first one is quite sort of straightforward on

page 82 4 .54 it's got the critical infrastructure priority one and how

confident are you that the infrastructure listed in the ten

strategic sites can be delivered in a timely way particularly schools, improved

roads, et cetera, it says in that section, infrastructure fundamental to delivery

of the development strategy and wider plan objectives for the area

without which the local plan cannot deliver its intended growth.

It is most likely to be needed before a development can commence, such as upgrades

to sewage treatment works, new school provision,

and highways improvements associated with strategic sites.

I still am not confident or think that this is going to happen in that order.

That is obviously what the wish of many people is, infrastructure for development.

But it does say, it is stated there, that that is your intention.

Officer - 2:35:18

If I may try and answer that question, it is our intention and it is required in order

to bring forward this level of development.

Obviously, these other regulatory regimes fall outside planning,

so all we can do is highlight and say this is what is required,

but it is outside our control to require a utility like Thames Water

to undertake works in a timescale that we think is appropriate.

So there is a lot of negotiation and discussion with these parties and I don't know whether

Andrew would find it useful to talk about statements of common ground that may be sure in some of these cases

The only the only thing I was going to say in addition is just I think what Jerry said earlier

Which is we've got the detail in the policy their policy requirements and that's how we judging a planning application

So we were absolutely clear that without the following infrastructure, the development

is not policy compliant.

So if the applicant can't demonstrate that the infrastructure will be delivered that's

required, then the proposal is not policy compliant.

And that's one of the key advantages of having a plan and setting out all the evidence, having

the infrastructure delivery plan, all the other evidence.

That's one of the key sort of benefits of doing that and having a planned approach.

because we can say you know if if there's something missing which is a key

policy component that's not policy compliant so ultimately we may have to

refuse the proposal and and that's you know that's part of the benefit of having

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:37:05

a plan as opposed to not. Look I know the dilemma but it is it is a concern and

And obviously each developer, it seizes,

they've got 250 houses or something.

It is a lot to ask when you're wanting a school,

a GP surgery, and a new road.

That was just, but thank you for that answer.

My other concern, I'm going to get onto my high horse,

is that obviously, Mclton, I'm,

Mclton is first and foremost in my mind,

because that's one of the villages I represent in my ward.

And obviously it was horrified,

as were many of the Mclton residents,

by the scale of the additional housing proposed here

between regulation 18 and 19,

590 houses to 1 ,387 and possibly more.

This delightful village,

on the edge of the Cotswold National Landscape,

is being utterly hammered out of shape

by the engulfing of the old historic centre

with conservation protection with a sprawling new housing estate.

The village has already absorbed recently far more than its fair share

of additional housing with three new estates in recent years.

One of my main concerns and amongst the people of residence in Mickleton is

that there is no local employment prospects.

Mention is made in the report of established employment just outside the district

at Mehan Vale and Long Marston.

That's in Warwickshire.

But in fact Warwickshire is planning huge development there, so

There will be many other people who also be looking for that same employment

So the so my going on from that is the transport issue, so you're in Mickelton. There's no jobs nearby

What you're going to do is try and find work locally

Again, we're sharing with Warwickshire the public transport services the busses largely come out of

Stratford for there. And active travel cycling for normal everyday life is

little used I'm always sort of watching for it in the winter it's too cold and

dark and now throughout the year it has become increasingly dangerous on our

busy roads which discourages residents from giving us a try. There are lots of

leisure cyclists we all know but you don't see people doing their shopping

going to work getting drawn to school. Honeybourne station is only three miles

away but there's already insufficient car parking capacity there and I noticed

the cycle stall there two days ago had very few cycles in it at any time when

it never does. How has this plan addressed enabling the new residents of

this housing to find new jobs close to Meckleton? I'm particularly concerned by

those people who will hopefully be moving into the affordable and social

housing who may not have one or two cars certainly in the family or may not have

a car at all, their life prospects are going to be highly reduced because they

Officer - 2:40:18

cannot rely on transport. Thank you. If I may I think sort of addresses slightly

differently I think if we kind of zoom out and look at the district as a whole

kind of strategically, there are only certain areas that are outside Cotswold

National Landscape. The majority of development of new development on the

proposed allocations is focused in the south, particularly around Sarnesestor

because that's deemed to be the location where it's either the most sustainable or

is capable of being made to be more sustainable. There's only two sites that

are not in that kind of broad south area, one at Moreton Marsh and one at

So is it unreasonable that there should be some development in Cotswold not directed to

Simon Sester in the area around the south if we're looking at the north the majority of the development is at multi marsh

Where's a railway station and it's one of the larger settlements in the district where there's more opportunity to live a more sustainable development

So you know again is it unreasonable that there should not be any development anywhere else?

is the scale of development at Meikleton is capable of supporting an improved level of

sustainability. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but everything is kind of proportionate. But

another thing a lot of people have talked about is tourism and places like Chippie Camden

are not very far away. There's lots of employment associated with tourism. Is it unreasonable

that that sort of northern part of the district

should not have any development.

People may be currently travelling from much further away

to access jobs and actually be much less journey time

to access some of the jobs in the district

than would otherwise be the case.

At the moment, pupils from Moreton Marsh

are going to a secondary school in Chippen Camden,

which is somewhere like eight, nine miles away.

If there's a new secondary school at Moreton Marsh,

over time there will be opportunity for pupils, for example, at Meckleton to go to the secondary

school at Chipping Camden because there will be more capacity, which is about three miles.

So actually we're substantially reducing the amount of people having to travel less distance

to school. So if we look at this in the round, there are factors that are not unreasonable.

And the planning inspector will be looking at this in the round in the context of national

policy. Various people have said, well, hang on, we're trying to produce a plan that's

capable of being sound, if we are saying,

appreciate this is not necessarily a popular view,

but from an inspector's perspective,

I think it'd be very hard to convince an inspector

that that site is not capable of supporting some development

that in an MPPF context would be considered to be reasonable.

Thank you for that.

I'm just going to say that I don't

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:43:07

think there's an unemployment problem in Tripping Camden.

so there's not much to be absorbed from future more employment.

And you'd never think of cycling, so if you didn't up that road,

so if you didn't have a car, that wouldn't.

But I understand the problems, but I really do think employment,

and we've just heard earlier that Morton wasn't going to have

an employment area, industrial or business park.

You know, we really do need more of these in our area

so people can live and work closer together.

I am going to...

We've got to the time, the witching hour.

We've got to take a vote on to extend the meeting,

which I'm sure I think everybody will wish to do so.

And I know that Neremy has also got to get off at this point.

So thank you, Neremy. Thank you for your contribution.

And are we all happy to vote that we suspect that we continue this meeting

beyond our three hours?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:44:03

Good, thank you. And we now have, I have got Claire Bloomer was on the list and I also

seem to think I saw some, anyway, do put your hands up to answer and Laura.

Councillor Claire Bloomer - 2:44:20

Thank you chair. Yeah, just a few more questions. So we all know Thames water is a huge issue.

I represent the new Mills Ward and over the last three weeks residents have gone

without water on three different occasions all mentioned by Thames Water

that their current structure is overloaded and I would really like to

see some you know confirmation that Thames Water are able to deliver and

we've been promised this for over a year but I know they're still reviewing CCTV

TV footage which has taken over a year.

I just think, you know, I would just like some reassurance

that this is not just going to be for new developments

but for the whole of the area

because we do see flooding very often.

You know, I also want to touch on housing management companies.

It's one of the biggest things that I get

in my email is reports about housing management companies

and how residents are left to fall to build.

and there's not much transparency in what the costs are and I'm just wondering if we could put something a little bit more robust within the plan

to work with these management companies because very often residents aren't told from the start these extra charges that they're going to have.

They work very differently to other areas. So in my area I have a new development and an older development.

and on the new developments residents go without maintenance, go without grass

cutting, issues with roads not being adopted and parking issues where

emergency vehicles can't get through and I would just like to see if there is

anything extra that we could possibly do when we're working with housing

management companies that will eventually take over these new

developments and you know they are treated very different and most

residents are paying both council tax and management fees, which is really

putting people into a difficult situation. And just finally again on,

you know, affordable accommodation. So, so important. And sometimes people

that are needing social housing or affordable housing can't actually afford

transport. And very often these people are reliant on that transport to get

their children to school to be able to do shopping as we've heard recently in

news that there are areas now that are food deserts where shops don't exist and

so there's just a few points there that I wanted to just feedback and so yes

thank you

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:46:59

Officer - 2:47:06

who would like to answer those comments I think that they echo some of mine if I

be forgiven for making a quick comment on the last point about affordable housing. I

mean, if I may say that is partly helping to explain why it's important to have some

affordable housing in the north part of the district, because it may be quite difficult

for people who do need affordable housing in those areas to travel from somewhere else.

Why is it fair for somebody who's on the affordable housing register who has a need which is more

in the northern part of the district for them to be relocated to say Sire and Cessna for example

and they might lose family connexions they might have employment in that sort of northern area so

that's partly why it's so important to have some housing provision in other than just in the south

and why some affordable housing provision is important in those other places. I think Jerry's

Officer - 2:48:00

a response. Yes, thank you. With regard to housing management companies, I know I

know it's a problem and it's not only a problem in this district I've had

experience elsewhere. However, I don't think the plan is the right place for it.

One of the reasons is that as Andrew has alluded to earlier there is a strategic

element to the plan and how we deal with management companies is very much a

matter of detail and it's a matter of detail when the planning application is

submitted. Now there are very, there are options for the management of open space

in new estates and historically or many years ago it would be would have been

the District Council that would have taken those up and we've had a Parks

Department and we would have had people to resource that but over time that

has diminished significantly.

And obviously when the council sold off its housing stock

as well, that undoubtedly had an impact on that wider.

So the next level down is town and parish councils.

And I think there's a lot of strong feeling

that ideally it would be town and parish councils

that could take on this.

That often requires a significant commuted sum

so that the town of parish council are properly mitigated against the cost of looking after those estates in the future and

It's not the case across the board

But some town of parish councils just don't have the capacity to take that on

Which is why we then come down to the management company level now

management companies are often

The option that a developer would prefer

to have. So again, I think the point I'm trying to make probably badly is that it

is a matter for negotiation at the planning application stage, but what we

could do is provide more advice to developers into how we would like to see

those management companies created. And it could be that if we did have a

situation where a management company was the only option, could we try and

influence who sits on that management company? Could it be members of the town

or parish council even if for example even if the local community aren't

taking it over themselves? So I think in answer to you there are things that we

can do which are positive but I just don't feel that the local plan policy

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:50:35

per se is the right place to do it. Thank you.

Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson - 2:50:39

All right thank you. Laura please.

Thank you.

If as we assume the housing target for the new unitary authority is going to be the sum

of the housing targets for all the district councils and there are some district councils

as we know don't have local plans, when we become the unitary authority does that still

create a risk for us that we could still have speculative development because it will be

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:51:09

looked at in the whole, does that sort of make sense?

Yeah, I don't believe that's the case

because the plan and we get the officers to advise

would essentially for the Cotswold district

would be the plan if we've made the plan.

So I don't think we would,

if we have the five -year housing land supply,

that will be the plan that will be used

to determine applications in this geographic area,

looking over at the officers just to confirm I've got that right. So I don't

yeah there's always a risk of specular development but as we know you can you

can get that when you've got a local plan and we've had that we had some of

it before we lost our five -year housing land supply and indeed there was a case

in my own ward where almost identical application in 2023 was refused because

it didn't meet the local plan 2025 it was permitted because we'd lost our

five -year land supply. So yes that can still happen but if the new authority

inherits our local plan with a five -year housing land supply they should be able

to resist speculative development.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:52:13

All right well Angus you're going to go now or you can ask John?

Councillor Jon Wareing - 2:52:21

Right John is going to get his name. So the local plan identifies the A429

Fost Way as the district's principal North -South transport corridor and we've

the proposal of 2200 homes, Morton and Marsh, supported by what I think is a, to paraphrase

Carl von Klauswitz, a small jump of half a ditch.

Doing something that just joins the A44 going south to the A429, a pointless waste of money.

I mean, it's nuts.

parts, we need a bypass that goes around the entirety of Moreton, otherwise you are just

rerouting people back to the centre. It doesn't make any sense at all. But the thing I really

wanted to understand is what assessment has been undertaken of the cumulative impact of

the existing traffic flow as well as forecast traffic flow on the wider corridor, particularly

through Stowe on the WELP, because Stowe is a nightmare. It also needs a bypass, frankly.

I'll do the case.

Sorry, David. We've got to consider this, I mean, I love the fact that the message about

the plan is it's infrastructure led. And we all support that. I think we're all feeling

dismal that the likelihood of it happening is you know is less than than

we would wish for but it's a system effect we need to consider that whole of

the force as one piece and I just want to understand has that analysis been

done in putting together this local plan?

David's done it.

Councillor David Cunningham - 2:54:18

Sorry can I just like so sorry

leader. There's a Morton viability study that was done that did a huge amount of

work on the traffic flows through and part of the problem in Morton itself is

the too many roundabouts and the lorries going through. If they can shift those

across maybe reinforce that with a weight limit it would actually alleviate

some of the issues of the traffic that is heading east. Not all of it but some of

So there has been work done. There's pages and pages of pictures of roundabouts and how many cars are going around them.

Sadly, I did read a lot of it, which makes me quite sad, but there has been work done.

The problem with Stowe and a bypass is we

have pylons around the outside of it because Stowe sits on a hill like that, right? So it's just not easy to do.

Go over the top. I mean a massive flyover that just goes over it.

There are bigger issues here. If we were to properly enforce pushing the heavy traffic

up the M5 and the M40 the way they should go to Birmingham when they come out of the

ports and not go up the Fosway and up through Stratford and on to Birmingham, maybe we'd

have less traffic on the road. But that's a question for talking to the Department of

Transport. So I think you're absolutely right. We should look at the corridor as a whole.

We should it's an old Roman Road. You can't widen it very much because soon as you get off of it

You're into a OMB. So that's not going to be great. But if you if you

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:55:51

Is suffering from insomnia read the roundabout report from Orton in Marsh. It gives you all the information

Thank you for your

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:55:57

Heavy knowledge. I think I've come I Kevin me would like I just wanted to make a comment

And John, yeah, I understand what you say about a bypass and had a similar conversation

with a colleague about that.

I think the reality is the government isn't funding bypasses anymore.

You know, they've just pulled quite a few to spend the money elsewhere.

I don't disagree that, you know, I would disagree with you in terms of the characterization

of the potential Link Road in Moreton because I think what I understand and

officer can add to this is that there's a net positive effect on the modelling of

doing the Link Road even though it won't go all the way around it will be better

than the current situation because it will take some traffic off the

roundabouts it won't solve the problem of you know so obviously it doesn't

solve the Stowe problem and it doesn't solve the total problem in Moreton in

And, you know, I think the plan does its best in terms of what it has in there to

say actually yes we do want a northern road, we need to safeguard the route and

if we can get that funded then that would be preferable. But some of

the challenges you're talking about is about how do we fund infrastructure in

the country which, you know, we can't get developers to fund, you know, what we're

talking about in here is what we can get developers to fund from profits of selling houses.

And obviously there's a limit to that and they also got this viability test

that they obviously use. There are structural issues that we have such as,

which has just been described and Councillor Cunningham eloquently talked

about Stowe and the which mean that I think it's really difficult and that

will be with our successors and national government ultimately maybe when we get

a mayor for Gloucestershire who covers us maybe they won't might be able to do

something on this basis and they might have some money to do it but I don't

think the County Council has the money to do it we definitely don't have the

money to do it and it's too big and ask for the developers to do it and that's

the challenge but I don't planning officers want to add from a professional

Officer - 2:58:10

perspective to what I've said. I don't think I can add really I mean the one

thing I would say is that the assessment definitely looks at cumulative impacts

across the district as a whole so that's definitely considered. If you forgive me

for saying I'm not sure I can add to what I've said before in relation to the

Morton proposal.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:58:27

Thank you. Who do you think is your next? Well I put myself after so it would be John.

He's just asked Lisa.

Yes, thank you.

Michael, did we, did David?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:58:45

Lisa and then David, because, David, you commented on them,

which confused the system.

But Lisa, did you get your question?

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:58:53

You did the answering.

Thank you, Chair.

I just actually wanted to pick up on a couple of things.

The first was around healthcare infrastructure.

I mean, I think we can ask for GP surgeries all we like,

but GPs are like commercial entities.

And you can build a building and you can allocate it,

but there ain't no GP that's ever gonna come into it

unless they really, really want to.

Fairford's the prime example of that.

Where it was put in a cable fields, they never came.

So I think to sort of equate infrastructure stuff

around health care is that that's not what's gonna happen.

We are all campaigning for various hospitals

across the Cotswold district already

to have services increased.

That will not be our local plan that delivers that.

that will be the NHS and other things.

So I think that's not quite the right example.

I also want to pick up on Thames Water and the discussion we've

had around that.

And so Nikki Hines very nicely emails us lovely positive things

and in her recent one I responded to her saying it was

lovely to hear that everything seemed so positive at Thames

Water but that actually in my own personal division that the

amtly St Peter's sewage treatment works was spilling for 1186 hours in 2025 and in

fair nearby Fairford it was 1163 hours. So far in 2026 amtly St Peter has been

spilling for 1260 hours and Fairford for 1564 hours and we're only halfway

through the year. So I would really challenge and I did go on then as I did

Councillor Harrison will know well in the meetings that I chaired with them that

when we were promised things in amp seven that have never happened. We were promised

things in amp eight, which I remain highly sceptical will ever happen. And those include

the upgrades in Fairford, in Morton, and in amply St. Peter, which are absolutely vital

to ensuring that we have sustainable development that can sustain what is the vast majority

of the 18 ,000 homes proposed in this plan.

And so I think that is absolutely, yeah,

it's absolutely vital that we get some guarantees on that

and we can't because as you absolutely rightly tell us,

we have no power within our local plan

to enforce terms of what to do things.

And I will cite again their new methodology

which says despite the fact that we have

in the last 18 months had over 2 ,500 hours

of water being spilled, sewage being spilled into our waterways, that they can still sustain

another 250 homes in Down Antony, for example, and others in Fairford and other places. It

is, it literally is Kafkaesque in terms of us looking at our dead rivers and them telling

us that there is more capacity at the sewage treatment works to do that. So I remain very

sceptical that we can ever rely on Thames Water to deliver the infrastructure as required.

And, you know, unless we have grampian conditions. And then I think that we then get into huge

issues around the viability of our local plan. Because just putting and allocating houses

doesn't mean they can actually be lived in, which is why, of course, I'm sceptical that

Thames Water will properly engage. And I would ask our MPs to ensure that they become statutory

consultees and actually end up delivering things. But I could go on and on about Thames

Water. Finally, I will just, it makes me so cross, so cross. And the final thing is around

roads and that network and I think, yes, you can ask for bypasses in Moreton, but I think

there should also be one which links Ledgeley through to Sire ancestor because quite frankly,

having what is going to be upwards of 10 ,000 pounds along the 417 London Road

which has to go through a 3 .4 metre gap in Fairford at a pinch point which has got

grade one listed buildings on it. I just think it's complete madness. How on earth

are we going to accommodate for all of those cars going through there and these

are why, you know, these are the issues that I think when we get into

infrastructure I think we have a collective agreement here that we all

want infrastructure either first or at least alongside development and I am

just very worried that you know because of Davis example in particular in

viability whereas there is nothing in legislation there's nothing in statute

which says you have to do it and we know no they come back and they renegotiate

on those one of sixes all the time but yet they're 20 % profit is in violet and

And we will end up with, I fear, a lot of houses and new infrastructure.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:03:41

Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:03:47

Another passion. I think Mike is going to...

Yeah, well, I was trying to work out if there was a question in there, but there wasn't required to have a question.

So maybe I'll just comment back, Lisa, to your comments.

And I think, yeah, absolutely, I totally get the point about

healthcare.

I think, but, you know, we are a planning department, we're not

the NHS, we're a planning authority, and asking people

to contribute to the capital costs of health infrastructure

is what we can reasonably ask.

We obviously are not going to ask them to start a GP surgery,

and you allude to where there's been problems that they haven't

done that.

So I think that is one thing where clearly our MPs can have

some influence, and I certainly know that my MP has managed

to lobby successfully over a surgery in the Wiltshire side

of her constituency.

So I'm sure, you know, if we get this plan, we will be working

with our MPs to lobby for the infrastructure to be delivered,

to be supported by the NHS.

Yeah, as you say, we can build buildings, but you need people

to be in them. On the point around Thames Water, yeah I absolutely understand the

point you make. I'm sure the officers might come and make a comment. Obviously

this is something that Juliet and I have talked about quite a lot and we've

talked about a lot as well. The inability to essentially demand Thames

Water does things and obviously there are discussions in government. We

will see whether there is a change in the ownership and structure of Thames

water, whether that makes a difference in terms of how it responds to its

customers and provides for its, I think something, it's a massive number of

residents, about 12 million or something. It's a very large number of us in the

country live in the Thames water area. But we will see, we'll do what we can

within the constraints and I know you understand this Lisa, I'm sure members do,

what the planning planning process allows us to do. And I think

maybe we might get an answer about the roads. I do accept the point about you

put more development, how can the roads cope and the pinch point is certainly

something that we've been asking officers about in Fairford. So I'm

totally aware of that and yeah I think I understand the fear. I think what we want

to do is to provide a plan that gives us the best opportunity to deliver for our

communities. And in answer I think to a earlier point I think no plan is the

worst opportunity for our communities. But I do accept that no plan that we

come up with is ever going to be perfect and there will always be people that

will seek to undermine it whether that's through the process or subsequently as

and when it's made. But all we can do as locally elected people I think is to do

our best for our communities and to reduce a plan that actually we can ask

our officers to deliver the infrastructure that should be delivered

alongside the housing that we are being told we must provide for. Andrew do you

Officer - 3:07:09

want to add on the point about the roads? I mean if I may just quickly comment on

the sort of health care point. I mean working with different health providers

in different council areas. Their preferred approach is to know what

housing is being planned where, to have time to plan to provide new provision

sort of correctly in a planned way and to be able to have the confidence that

they will be able to collect some developer contributions to help them

deliver what they need to deliver. So that is their preferred approach. That's

not knowing what's happening or where.

Development happening is sort of bits and pieces here and there, unplanned,

where it may be very difficult to plan, you know, effectively,

and they may end up in a situation where they end up, you know,

if you sort of look back over what's happened over the last year or two or three

of speculative development, you discover that actually the total amount

of development that's come forward is quite significant,

but the amount of contributions to infrastructure is much less

than is required.

And that's the example that I gave that was in Hampshire.

I could give a number of other examples from other places.

So working with health bodies in a number of places,

they will always prefer a planned approach

where they can plan for what they need to do effectively.

And really, the same is true for water providers.

I mean, ultimately, they do have a legal requirement

to provide the infrastructure.

If they have a number of years to plan,

they sort of know what's happening, where it's happening,

and they have a number of years to plan,

it's more likely to happen more effectively than not. So as you know it

may be that we can't absolutely guarantee everything is a hundred percent

perfect but the alternative will almost certainly be worse it won't be any

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:09:04

better. Thank you. That's not the lived experience in the Cotswold district.

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 3:09:10

It's just really it's really not. I think we've been promised by Thames Water

since amp 7 and amp 8 and it's not happening. I've sat in so many meetings with them.

We remain very sceptical that it will ever, ever happen.

Officer - 3:09:24

If I may just make one other comment. This may not be the case in Cotswold, so I'm not

saying this is necessarily the case, but it's certainly the case in other places. Quite

often communities see, effectively, speculative development coming forward and they see the

housing coming forward without infrastructure and that's kind of the

experience that communities have and they see the harm that that causes. I'm

not saying that's necessarily the case here but it's certainly the case in a

lot of other places so you quite often will see community saying but what about

this site and this site and this site and this site and this site they haven't

had the infrastructure but actually when we delve into it we discovered that a

lot of that is actually happening outside of the planned approach with the

allocations it's kind of happening in a piece more expected way so it can be

quite hard to get the message over to people that is quite counter -intuitive because people

are just seeing development without infrastructure, but actually the way to get the infrastructure

is not to not have a plan, it's to try and make the plan more effective.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:10:26

Well, I was just going to add on, we have a problem with fresh water for us in the north,

Thames Water is responsible for and yet again it, Middleton was out of water the

other day, it was a leak similar to the place that had last year when it was out

for up to ten days for some people. You know the infrastructure is so crumbling

that it's already got low water pressure in Middleton it's going to struggle so

I'm now going, so I fully back that I don't have faith that it's going to be

I was going to go to Angus.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:11:00

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, well, I was with Liza in the sewage summit, and in my ecology brief I've got quite involved

in this issue.

The trouble is that when you're going bankrupt or you're on the edge of bankruptcy, it's

very difficult to actually commit to building the infrastructure that you're supposed to

building and that's been the problem for a while and they're right on the edge of it

now.

It's known how it is.

So I don't have much faith, I don't have any faith in Thames Water in the present situation.

The government takes it over.

Well, the way the government is putting money into infrastructure, do you think they'd be

any better?

It's an interesting question.

So coming to the issues here, I do have, this is a technical point, I have some questions.

concerns about the settlement hierarchy in terms of its structure, and I'd like to ask

you to consider it again, please.

It seems to me that its developments are and the right to develop is modified by the effect

of the national landscape, but that's not well incorporated in the development hierarchy.

The present pain factor that we've been discussing is not accommodated anywhere in the development

hierarchy, so there's no consideration for how much a

particular place might already be in trouble as to whether it's

a suitable place for development.

Driffield is not well accommodated.

It's been put into a strategic site, and yet the basic

definition of a strategic site is that it's already got a whole

lot of infrastructure, but it doesn't have any at all.

So effectively, it only becomes a strategic site

by being developed.

It would be far better if we had a different hierarchical point

that says, here's a green space and we're going to build a

fresh, high -quality place.

I'm really distressed that we did not start doing that several

years ago.

The opportunity to do that is considerable.

I think we've missed a trick.

But what I'm concerned about here is not just a sort of

nerdy point, but doesn't this need modifying to avoid local

problems and a muddle on appeal or examination so that it's

really clear what is and is not allowed?

So I'd ask you to consider that.

Moving on, Morton in Marsh is by some margin the largest

development in the planned period.

It's also been, my ward has been the receiver of the most unplanned developments in the

last 15 or so years, so I've become a bit of an expert in this.

Given the existence of the existing problems and the absence of a bypass, it does not seem

proportionate to have so much further development when it's

already on the edge.

For example, there's no provision has been made for

the GP surgery, which is we've, you've already been informed is

now the requirements exceed the capacity of the GP surgeries,

the two of them, to be able to cope.

And that was a request some years ago to refuse developments

that have been since approved.

So they're at their wits end, seriously,

because they've got no space to put people in.

The government wants things without paying for them.

That's the problem.

Half a bridge is not yet a solution.

And having been lobbying for a road in Moreton

for a long time, we've heard about it already,

this evening have been lobbying for that for a long time.

I'm not sure that we should actually build this road.

I think we should protect the route.

But my concern is that it's half a road.

And what it actually seems to do is primarily

support the reduction at one roundabout coming in

from the A44 and the enablement of developments in that area

to be able to get to the Fosse Way.

What I'm bothered about and residents are is the flow

of traffic through the centre of town.

And it is not a good solution to enable more traffic

to flow faster through the middle of town.

That is not a solution.

That kills the centre of town as a retail centre,

as a place that you'd want to be as a market town.

What we want is less traffic running through the centre of town.

And this solution at the moment won't achieve that.

Indeed, it may, it's been suggested, enable more traffic to pass through.

I'm seriously concerned that I, as to whether we'd be better off taking the money on half a road

and putting it to some of the other really critical levels

of infrastructure in the short term.

Comment, please.

I'll stop at this point.

Officer - 3:16:42

So I think in terms of the settlement hierarchy,

I think the settlement hierarchy kind of looks like, you know,

what I would expect a settlement hierarchy to look like.

It's consistent with a good number of other local plans.

It supports the sort of larger level of development

at the larger, more sustainable settlements.

It has much more limited development allowed

at the smaller settlements and then essentially saying

there shouldn't be any development

in the very small settlements.

That's kind of what we'd expect.

That's consistent with national policy.

That's what I think we would expect a planning inspector

to support.

Stakeholders like the County Council

would be normally they would be strong supporters of a settlement hierarchy that supports development

in the more sustainable places and less development in the less sustainable places. So that's

quite sort of usual approach. I think it would be odd for the council to try to deviate from

national policy or convention from lots of other places. In terms of Morton, if you don't

mind me saying I'm not sure I can add more to the various discussions we've had through

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:17:54

the course of the meeting.

I all know the comments, the document and the comments have

dealt with the roundabout and the A44.

It is the traffic coming from the north to the south and from

the south to the north that flows through the main centre of

town.

That does not seem to be much affected by this change.

In effect, what we've been hearing is that that will be able to flow faster through the

centre of town with less disruption.

When you stand in the middle of town and watch a constant flow, including many HGVs, it is

pretty distressing for a small market town which is supposed to be one of the showcases

of the Cotswolds.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:18:46

I think I get that Angus and I think that's what is in here with the Link Road.

She says it's about one dealing with the impact of the development and the people

who are going to live on that potential development and their access east and

south doesn't deal with their access north and west except that. I totally

at your point about the centre of town and you...

But that sort of comes back to what I was saying in response to John's question,

that I don't think the local plan can fix that.

I think if we thought it could, we would have tried to do that.

I'm looking at the offices.

But essentially, you know, the A429, the Fosse Way,

the traffic that goes all the way through it, you know,

I drive through there sometimes if I'm going to the University at Warwick.

That's the way that I go.

And I'm sure other people do as well.

I'm not sure what we are able to do other than if we had the Link Road all the way around,

which we obviously in the plan we're looking to safeguard,

that would have potentially ameliorate some of that, but not all of it.

There may be other things that you might want to, I'm sure you have probably raised them

with the member of parliament, but I'm thinking about whether there's an opportunity

to restrict lorries on that, on the Fosway and therefore on the bridge. But

it feels like that's a problem, I understand it. I don't think, unless

officers can, you know, say any more about what, if anything else, that they feel

that we could do about it or particularly whether we could do

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:20:31

anything in our local plan about it.

To the north is dangerous. People have to walk across there with prams and it's

It's dangerous. It's seriously dangerous. You get two big lorries, it's a mess.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:20:52

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 3:20:56

Nobody could disagree with that. It's fundamental.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:20:58

Do we really want to spend the money on something that will deliver a limited benefit to the town?

Is there something better?

So, you know, I have been so keen to get a road build

Fantastic when I saw there was a road being built. I was so excited

So and and I have to say I'm really sorry to be

Critical about things. It's kind of the job of the scrutiny, but there's really so much that's good in this plan. I

Officer - 3:21:39

are critical points that are very painful. Thank you. I mean I think a

number of people have said a number of things during this evening about

importance of being able to deliver the infrastructure, making sure that it's it

is deliverable, it's not kind of over ambitious, that it's viable, it can be

funded etc so there is a balance I think I mean I assume that counsellors would

not want to have more development which was not at least trying to improve the

highway position I don't think counsellors would want to have development

which was worsening the highway position so the only way we can collect money for

infrastructure is to have development so if we if we directed the money towards

something other than highways, we would be making the highway position worse, which I

think is fair to say would be unlikely to be a preferred approach.

So we have to try and strike a balance between making the development as successful as we

can within the parameters that we're working within.

All right.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:22:51

Unless anybody else has thing, I've got one.

Oh, no.

I'll let Councillor CUMMING in.

We will not have time.

If we go for too many more questions,

we'll run out of time to make the recommendations.

Councillor David Cunningham - 3:23:05

So bear that in mind.

The hall monitor is telling me that I should just be quick.

West Ham are playing.

Yes, West Ham are playing this Saturday, actually.

What I was going to say was, actually,

it was in defence of the local plan, a bit like Angus.

I was going to say, things like the policies we have

on proper water capture, grey water, stuff like that.

These are the things that we can influence.

These are the things that will take some of the pressure off of the waste system

and the waste pipes that are not up to it.

These are things, these are policies that we can use and we can say to builders,

you need to make sure that these houses have all of these proper ways to capture water.

And we can do that in such a way that it does help to alleviate the issues,

alleviate not cure but not have to rely on the EA or off what or Thames bloody

water so I think you know we there are ways in the local plan where we can help

and I would just say one thing about GP surgeries we have a hospital in Moreton

it's lovely if if anyone wants to squat in there there are loads and loads of

empty rooms that you can go into but I would say that if ever the money comes

along for the NHS to boost that up, the building's there. So, you know, build it and they will

come is what I'm trying to say. There are times when putting infrastructure in on a

bit of a gamble can work out well. So, I would say, I know that housing is what will, you

know, it's the big thing looming over us, but we've got, let's not get away from the

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:24:43

fact that there are lots of things in this local plan that we like. That's it.

Well thank you for that. I'm going to ask my short question just and it's for

clarification for all everybody in the in the Cotswolds and it's the

clarification on the consultation process and how much the residents who

engage with it can influence the plan at that period. I know it's going to be

shared with them. I think that some of them are going to feel that they would

Officer - 3:25:11

like to have their comments heard and incorporated. I wanted a clarity on that

please thank you. The reg 19 stage is a little bit different to previous

consultations so any responses to the reg 19 will be sent to the planning

inspectors they will consider all of the comments in detail and ultimately it's

for the inspectors to decide of the comments they've seen you know which

ones they want to use to form the basis of questions or how they want to run

examination so that the independent planning inspectors will run the

examination process they will decide what questions you want to ask how they

want to run it who they want to get involved so that they can participate so

it's not the council so anyone that responds to reg 19 it ultimately it's

for the inspectors to decide which points they think are important how they

want to run these the examination what questions they ask etc that's not for

Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:26:05

council to do that's for the planning inspectors. If I could just add I think

that just highlights that you know in terms of my earlier answer that the

housing target is determined by the government whether we can adopt and

they tell us we have to do a local plan whether that plan is found sound is

determined by a planning inspector appointed by the government working up

to the terms that that he or she is working to and then we get to decide

whether we want to adopt it or not.

The system, the planning system is very much determined

by national government.

The leeway that I think we have, as you can see,

is relatively limited in terms of what we're able to do

within that.

Having said that, it's really, really important that local

people do have their say, and we'll have a six -week

consultation, and there'll be events.

They can go along, they can go on the website,

and that's really very important because as Andrew has said if we've got if

there's something that's wrong in the plan and fundamentally is non -deliverable

the inspector hears evidence about that then he or she will want to you

know explore that if that comes forward from from the residents or if there are

modifications that the residents would like to see then the inspector may

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:27:26

consider them but it'll be down to the inspector it won't be down to us.

No, thank you for that clarification. I just know that some people felt that their comments

and things in Regulation 18, they were surprised what happened in Regulation 19. So it's to

make them feel that their comments are still valuable and that they should engage still.

I think some people, there are some people obviously upset because of the huge changes

in certain areas, but suddenly got a lot of housing. So I am now going to let Angus do

Oh, no we did, David. Angus, your last questions, but please be bearing in mind that we have got to do recommendations shortly.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:28:03

Thank you. I may be questioning a comment that was made earlier.

So my core question is why is the main settlement not the main development area?

Why does Syrinsester not have by far the largest amount of further development?

Syrinsester is slated for less than 3 ,000 in the planned period, the south is slated for just under 5 ,000 in the planned period,

and the north is slated for 3 ,000 just under 3 ,500 in the planned period.

So it's actually the lowest number in the plan period,

according to the structure of the model that we've seen.

So we know about the problems in Moreton,

and we've heard about the problems in other places

in the north, like Meckleton.

We've heard about problems in the south.

Officer - 3:29:29

Why is there not more taking place in the planned period in Cirencester bearing in mind that all the other areas will collect more housing between now and 2043 to be built on in the period after 2043 anyway? So that's the question.

I think there's probably two parts to the answer.

I think the first part is that the housing around Sire ancestor is focused in a relatively

small area around one settlement, whereas the other areas are much more extensive.

So there's kind of an element of would it be appropriate to have a larger proportion

of the development in a relatively small location?

but the other part of it is you know this is informed by what development

sites are available that are suitable deliverable achievable etc and you know

we don't have any other sites available to us so we have an opportunity of the

plan as presented we think meets national requirements we think it's

being sound but we don't have lots of other sites that are available to us

that we could put development on instead because there aren't more sites.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:30:33

I didn't track up your numbers Angus but obviously we've got the

settings extension to the south of that there's a proposal for a thousand more

homes at Kemble to the east.

That's counted as the south.

Yeah.

Well, it's in very close proximity to Sire and Cessna.

So these are the places.

And I'm going to talk about the ward

that I represent, which is adjoining to Sire and Cessna.

There's a proposal for 370 houses at Siddington,

which will be not far away from the Steddings development, which

is the major expansion.

There's an expansion 600 plus homes

opposite the Kingshill School.

And then behind there from Preston.

So, and then the ones that Lisa referred to,

and Driffield, and in down amply.

So the vast bulk of the developments,

potential developments are in looking to siren sister

as their major centre.

I think, and it's as he is, and as Andrew has said,

it's about which sites were suitable

and came forward around siren sister.

But I wouldn't want people in the north to think

that there weren't potential sites around Syrinsester that people from

Syrinsester or would not be want to they're rejoining the and in the

surrounding settlements it's getting quite late and I'm mangling my words

sorry.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:31:58

Well it's alright, he's got a big glass of water in front of him so is there a bit of

gin in there? No definitely not. I now want to move forward we've had a very good

debate. It's been a long day. It's all very good of you to give up so much of your

time in the middle of the summer holidays for this extraordinary meeting.

I think we've got ideas for a recommendation. I'm going to ask Simon

because he's got the computer in front of him to read them out and I then want

Simon Harper, Officer - 3:32:32

your responses to it. We have got 10 minutes to get this work done. Thanks

Chair and I'll split it down into four parts and the first part has got an A B C

and D okay so it starts number one to note the detailed work undertaken on the

local plan and ask the cabinet to consider the following a strengthened

policies where tourism causes exceptional infrastructure pressure on

settlements and born on the water and bybury were given as examples but that

the importance of providing the infrastructure indicated in the plan for

the strategic sites in a timely way, often before development begins and where

necessary using ramping conditions. Infrastructure includes transport, water

supply, drainage, sewage treatment, sustainable water management, health care,

education, employment and environmental improvements and is a fundamental aspect

of building new sustainable communities.

C, in light of the risks associated with the provision

of infrastructure, examine the potential use

of multi -agency gateway agreements,

which developers could be required to sign up to

before development commences.

D, ensure that the plan is accessible to all,

including the provision of information

to those who cannot access web -based documents

and those who would struggle to attend public meetings

and exhibitions.

Right, then we move on to two, and these are some of the wider issues.

Two, express concern that the national targets for new homes set by the government are simply

numbers based and do not reflect the real housing needs of local communities, including

the types of homes required and their affordability.

Three, note wider concern at the failure of Thames Water in providing resilient water

supplies and sewage treatment capacity across the Cotswold District and request that this

continue to be highlighted to government.

And then the fourth one,

and I think a few members have mentioned this,

to thank Andrew and the planning policy team

for their efforts in recent months

in preparing the plan and its supporting documents.

That's it.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:34:47

Absolutely fine.

I'm sorry, that's fine.

Thank you, Simon, for reading that.

I do want your responses,

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 3:34:54

and I can see a hand went up fast from Councillor Spivey

and then Councillor Bruma.

Yeah, I think, well done.

think that's captured a lot of it. I think there would be something around in

particular. I think we'd want to recommend the cabinet asks to

potentially reconsider some of the transport planning infrastructure around

Morton in particular and I have raised concerns around Fairford because I am

very concerned about that pinch point of Fairford town which could see huge

volumes of traffic going through it so I don't quite know how we would do that

You'd have to put your other hat on, because there's a counter issue.

Unfortunately I can't knock down grade one listed buildings.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:35:40

I always think it's good to have these things noted anyway, and they're really important points.

Transport is going to be a problem. As I see it, just more and more traffic on the roads.

I have no idea quite what's behind it, but people are more addicted to using their cars than ever.

Councillor Bloomer.

Thank you, Chair. Just one point on point B.

Councillor Claire Bloomer - 3:36:01

I just want to clarify about, you said about infrastructure just about near it, at the side of it.

I was just going to say, could we not just change that to be like, you know, to me, it should be infrastructure first,

or at least alongside development?

Simon Harper, Officer - 3:36:21

First started B, highlight the importance of providing the infrastructure indicated in the plan for the strategic sites in a timely way

Often before development begins and where necessary using granting conditions. Okay, and then I'm just picking up

Councillor Spivey's

Change I can just pop that in actually.

Councillor Bloomard that was the point that I had on that page 82 the 4 .54

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:36:52

I really do think that is crucial.

Does anybody else have any other comments or any other suggestions

or recommendations?

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:37:03

It's not a change to the area plan, but I would encourage us to make sure

that in the communication that goes out, there's a contextual

guidelines that is strong and in particular covers issues such as

Where the developments are taking place relatively speaking across the district

What

Why

we need to have the area plan approved and

and why it is not satisfactory to leave it to the unitary to take care of it.

Obviously, these have to be communicatively strong,

but they also have to be technically accurate so far as we can.

Sorry.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:38:03

That was my recommendation.

I'm all right to pass. Of course, I had an extra ten minutes.

We will have a break.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:38:12

Sorry, I'm going to go back to the presentation.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:38:16

Exactly how would you want this recommendation?

You're asking?

The recommendation is please make sure that you provide a

coherent contextual narrative for the actual plan itself that

covers off these and other critical issues so that people

reading it understand the issues properly.

Thank you.

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 3:38:40

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:38:42

Councillor Spivey. Thank you, thank you, Chair.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:38:46

Sorry, I've stopped. Would you like Simon to read them out again and then could

Simon Harper, Officer - 3:39:01

I have a proposer and seconder for those? I've just added a couple then.

So look again at the transport infrastructure, in particular occasions in the district,

notably Morton and Marsh and Fairford.

Ensure that communication is clear to the public on why the plan is necessary

and the risks associated with not having a plan.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:39:32

I still need, oh, he's in, you're not in the committee.

Councillor David Cunningham - 3:39:45

Yes, David.

I'm very happy for ONS to make recommendations to Cabinet. Anything that makes me ever do

more work is always going to get my vote. So I think that's always a plus. I was very

rudely, and I apologise Angus, I was very rudely just asking the officers behind me,

how much of these recommendations can we actually deliver through the local plan? And the answer

is only some of them. So whilst we can make these recommendations, we should do so in

the full knowledge that when they go to cabinet,

they will be passed by, not double S, A -R -S -E,

by the officers who will then say,

yes, we might be able to conclude this,

but no, we might not be able to conclude that,

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:40:30

and we need to be accepting of that.

Right, well, thank you. I don't think ...

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:40:40

David, if you're very quick, we have a very few minutes.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:41:05

Thank you.

and I appreciate that, and sorry, I should have been less,

I mean, less sort of decisive.

I do think it's really important that this meeting allowed them

to have questions to the officers, whereas the cabinet

and full council won't.

And so it was a very important interaction for those people,

so they were terrific to come, and some of them are still here.

So I hope it was useful.

I am going to say the only other thing which we could have put

forward as a recommendation, and you probably won't like me

to say it, is whether we actually feel

that we should deliver on this local plan and continue it.

or not. I actually believe that at this stage we've done the scrutiny, which is the job

of overview scrutiny. It goes forward to cabinet. And then having seen and heard more arguments

then, it is up to that point to make those decisions. So it's not within the scrutiny's

I don't think it's at the appropriate moment to make that sort of thing. So that's why

we've got...

Just being clear on either propose or second to it.

He wants to have a proposal as a Secretary. I saw John and John, we love it, and then we all go woo.

Webcast Finished - 3:42:19

And I say thank you so, so, so much. That was very good.

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 hCaptcha.

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.

Interactive webcast player

Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeMonday, 3rd August 2026 at 4:00pm

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:00

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:00:40

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:01:10

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:02:45

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:51

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:13

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:15

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:17

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:19

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:03:26

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:03:36

Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:03:45

Councillor Naomi Bloomer - 0:03:56

Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:04:06

Councillor Jon Wareing - 0:04:13

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:04:17

Councillor Claire Bloomer - 0:04:22

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:04:27

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:04:33

Officer - 0:04:42

Officer - 0:04:50

Officer - 0:04:56

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:05:03

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:05:08

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:13

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:23

Councillor Naomi Bloomer - 0:05:25

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:42

4 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:09:11

7 Local Plan

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:13:13

5 Public Questions

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:14:10

Public Speaker - 0:14:27

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:16:24

Officer - 0:16:40

Officer - 0:16:43

Officer - 0:16:50

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:19:50

Public Speaker - 0:20:13

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:22:44

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:22:59

Public Speaker - 0:23:09

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:24:28

Officer - 0:24:42

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:27:10

Simon Harper, Officer - 0:27:21

Public Speaker - 0:27:38

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:29:44

Public Speaker - 0:30:01

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:32:15

Officer - 0:32:31

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:36:12

Officer - 0:36:38

Officer - 0:36:45

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:37:25

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:37:52

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:39:30

Public Speaker - 0:39:51

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:41:18

Public Speaker - 0:41:46

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:42:58

Officer - 0:43:00

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:45:39

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:08

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:46:24

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:47:16

Public Speaker - 0:48:02

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:48:31

Public Speaker - 0:48:53

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:49:50

Officer - 0:49:53

Officer - 0:51:28

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:51:37

Public Speaker - 0:52:20

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Monday, 3rd August 2026 at 4:00pm