Interactive webcast player

Cabinet
Thursday, 6th August 2026 at 6:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Officer
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Councillor Mike Evemy
  7. Officer
  8. Councillor Mike Evemy
  9. Public Speaker
  10. Councillor Mike Evemy
  11. Public Speaker
  12. Councillor Mike Evemy
  13. Councillor Mike Evemy
  14. Public Speaker
  15. Councillor Mike Evemy
  16. Public Speaker
  17. Councillor Mike Evemy
  18. Officer
  19. Councillor Mike Evemy
  20. Officer
  21. Councillor Mike Evemy
  22. Councillor Mike Evemy
  23. Public Speaker
  24. Councillor Mike Evemy
  25. Public Speaker
  26. Councillor Mike Evemy
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Mike Evemy
  29. Public Speaker
  30. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Jon Wareing
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Officer
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Officer
  6. Councillor Mike Evemy
  7. Councillor Tony Dale
  8. Councillor Mike Evemy
  9. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  10. Councillor Mike Evemy
  11. Councillor Jon Wareing
  12. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Juliet Layton
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Councillor Paul Evans
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Councillor Gina Blomefield
  6. Councillor Mike Evemy
  7. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  8. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  9. Councillor Mike Evemy
  10. Councillor Mike McKeown
  11. Councillor Mike Evemy
  12. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  13. Councillor Mike Evemy
  14. Councillor Tony Dale
  15. Councillor Mike Evemy
  16. Councillor Juliet Layton
  17. Councillor Mike Evemy
  18. 05. Local Plan - Recommendations 1-4 - APPROVE
    Status: In progress
  19. Councillor Mike Evemy
  20. 05. Local Plan - Recommendations 1-4 - APPROVE
    Status: Ended
  21. Webcast Finished

1 Apologies

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:00:00
My name is Councillor Mike Evermy.
I'm leader of the council and I'm chairing this evening's meeting.
I'd like to welcome cabinet members, other members present, members of the public in
attendance and everybody watching online.
For those of you watching online, the council, the cabinet, when we vote, we'll be using
an electronic voting system and the outcome of the vote will be displayed on the webcast.
If there's any issue with the voting system, then we will resolve to a show of hands.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I'll now begin the formal business of the meeting.
So the first item is to consider any apologies for absence.
Every member of the cabinet is present, so there are no apologies.

2 Declarations of Interest

Second item is declarations of interest.
Is there any member or officer who wishes to make a statement about any interests?
Councillor Pellegram.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:01:02
Thank you, Chair.
For transparency, I wish to declare that I am a retired professional planner and a director
of Andrea Pellegram Limited, a planning consultancy.
This interest is recorded in my register of interests.
The company provides professional planning services to a range of clients including town
and parish councils and I have worked in this district.
From time to time that work includes assisting councils
to respond to local plan consultations.
I recognise that this may create a perception
that my business role could overlap with my responsibilities
as a cabinet member and as a counsellor more widely.
I maintain a clear separation between these roles.
I do not use my council position to promote the interest
of the company or its clients and I do not disclose
or use confidential counsel information for business purposes.
I have always disclosed where I consider that there might be a perception of a conflict
of interest as I'm doing today.
I have discussed my position with the leader of the counsel and the monitoring officer.
In relation to the present local plan, my company provided planning support
to Honeyborn Parish Council during Regulation 18 consultation.
Honeyborn Parish Council lies outside of Cotswold District Council
and is a statutory consultee in this instance.
That work was undertaken by another consultant and I had no involvement
in preparing or submitting the representations or in seeking
to influence their consideration by the district council.
Neither do I or my company have a land interest affected by the plan
or a financial interest dependent upon its outcome.
I've considered the matter carefully and taken advice from the monitoring officer
and I've agreed with my business partner
that my company will not accept any commission from within Cotswell District
to prepare a representation on the draught local plan.
I'm satisfied that I do not have a disclosable pecuniary interest
or another interest requiring me to withdraw.
I will therefore remain in the meeting and participate in the discussion and vote.
Thank you, Councillor Pellegram.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:03:01
Does any other member or officer wish to make any declaration of interest?
No? Okay. So we'll now move on.

3 Public Questions

Just before we go to the public questions, I thought it might be helpful to make a statement
and in preparation for the discussions that we're having this evening.
So I wanted to start by acknowledging the anxiety and concern caused by the
publication of our proposed plan on the 24th of July. I recognise that for some
of our communities that may have been surprising what was in there and
recognise that I'm sure we will hear in the public questions some of that coming
forward. I wanted to remind members and people watching and people in the room
that you know we are as a local authority we are facing a government
that has imposed a housing target upon us. Many of you will remember when the
government was elected two years ago they talked about building one and a half
million homes in five years that's 300 ,000 a year and as a consequence of
that the figure that they expect to be delivered from the Cotswold district
more than doubled to over a thousand a year from less than 500. That means
essentially that our current housing policies in our current local plan are
deemed out of date and that there is currently and until we adopt a new local
plan a tilted balance which is in favour of development and essentially that is
speculative development aside from those developments that are on obviously our
already allocated sites in our current local plan. The government has three
times refused to adjust that figure in response to letters that I have written
to three different government ministers, two of which, Angela Rayner and Matthew
Penacut remain in the government in the roles in which I wrote to them. And they
made it clear that they were not going to change the target and that we needed
to essentially prove that we could, we needed to use the housing target that
they had given us. And I made the case and it was supported by colleagues from
other political groups on the council and also in the last letter I sent
together with comments and help from that we received through the public
consultation and regulation 18 but the government has been steadfast they have
not budged on the target so we face the housing target of 1054 homes per year
And finally, just before I finish, just to remind members and the other people that 12 months ago the Council unanimously agreed that we should update our local plan.
Because it is only by having a local plan that is adopted ultimately by the Council that we can refuse speculative planning applications.
in, well we can refuse some, but what we have seen is that we've lost appeals in
recent weeks where we, our planning committee or our officers have made
decisions to review speculative planning applications and planning inspector has
overturned them. So that's the context for the discussion that we're having
this evening. So I'd now like to move on to public questions and I know we've
had, we've obviously got some members of the public who've intimated that they
would like to ask a question.
So I'm just going to call them out.
But obviously, I want to allow anyone else that
hasn't told us on the way in that they want to ask a question.
I'll go to you at the end from the speakers
that I've already got.
So I'm going to go first, if that's OK,
to Councillor Adam Crawford from Down Amity Parish Council.
Adam, if you want to come over next to Nikki over there
and ask your question.
Public Speaker - 0:07:23
Thank you.
Given that the scrutiny committee meeting that I attended on Monday, in answer to my
question regarding the lack of military aircraft noise certificate for Aria Fairford and the
impact of severe noise on proposed developments from the forward -based US
Air Force bomber force your planning team cited only that they had consulted
the MOD could the cabinet please confirm that these discussions with the MOD
included the impact of the b1b Lancer which produces 140 decibels of noise on
takeoff and these proposed developments will lie directly under the takeoff
flight path approximately only one and a half miles from the runway where the
bomber is probably at an altitude of only 500 feet. Following on from that,
given that independent assessments of aircraft noise, health impacts and
aviation safety have not yet been completed and published, on what evidence
does the cabinet rely in concluding that any proposed down allocation represents
sustainable development.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:08:37
Thank you very much, Adam, for your questions.
Clearly there's a technical element to your question, so we
rely on our professional officers to provide us with
professional advice and technical evidence.
So I'm going to go to one of our officers to give a response to
that question.
Good evening.
Officer - 0:08:59
just following on from Monday's experience, if for any reason there's
any problem with volume, please do indicate and I will do my best to speak
more loudly. If I'm honest, I'm not sure, perhaps I should just introduce
myself. My name is Andrew Maxted. I'm the interim head of Planning Policy and
Infrastructure for the Council. So I'm not sure I can, if I'm honest, I'm not
sure I can add very much to the conversation we had on Monday. I mean we
would expect the MOD to advise us on matters related to development that's
proposed that they feel would be impacted by their sort of operations.
They have highlighted issues with some sites they've not told us about any
issues that they are concerned about in relation to this one. I think also we
said that the sort of engagement with stakeholders will continue so we'll
continue to talk to the MOD as with other stakeholders but we would expect
them as we would expect other stakeholders to advise us on matters
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:10:08
relating to their own sort of area of operations. Thank you for your question
so just to add I guess to what the officer has said clearly that's a
concern I'm hearing and you expressed it tonight and on Monday and the cabinet
has heard that, which if we go to the Regulation 19 consultation, I'm sure you and people in
Down Antony will raise through that consultation and it can be considered. And I take it from
what our officers have said is that they will continue to engage with the MOD. And if they
find a fundamental problem with the Down Antony proposal off the back of what comes from the
MOD, that will come back through the process. But thank you very much for raising it. Next
speaker I've got is Richard Harrison, Councillor Richard Harrison from Fairford
Town Council. Richard.
Public Speaker - 0:10:57
Richard Harrison from Fairford Town Council. In going through the documents
published last Friday, as well as some of the ones earlier, we've already identified
a number of significant issues with the assessments and detailed proposals for
Fairford which in particular don't provide a realistic solution to the problem of the bottlenecks on the A417 in the town.
Are you prepared to acknowledge in the consultation document that there are these issues
which put a significant part of the plan at risk and
make a commitment to addressing them in the consultation
in consul sorry in consultation with us with amendments before the plan is
submitted at the end of the year is it feasible to facilitate this by a short
delay before the plan submitted to Council for approval of the consultation
documents next week to allow us time to give you a detailed list of what those
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:12:04
issues are. Thank you very much Richard. I'll answer the last bit and then I'll
offer it to any other member or if Juliet wants to say anything or to an
officer. I think the time the time scale that we're on is tight. We always knew it
would be because we resolved a year ago that we would look to update our local
plan and the government has, as you know, a timeline for submission under the
current process by the end of the calendar year. I think if there are
fundamental issues that you're going to raise, then the consultation is
the time to raise them. I don't think we're able to change anything now,
but absolutely if you want in the consultation that's what the process is
for and if you bring forward information, obviously our officers will look at that.
But I will go to an officer to answer, give any more in response to your question.
Andrew?
Thank you.
Officer - 0:13:05
There is substantial evidence.
The national policy requirement is that it should be proportionate.
I think officers are satisfied the evidence is substantive.
it's what we would typically expect for a local plan process.
But as I've said in response to other questions,
also on Monday for overview and scrutiny,
the process of engaged with stakeholders doesn't stop.
So we'll continue to talk to the high risk authority
as we will for other stakeholders.
And if something arises,
the council can propose modifications
for the inspectors to consider,
but the inspectors themselves can,
ultimately the inspector will be responsible for identifying modifications
that they feel are necessary so the inspectors will be looking at any
responses to the consultation from any participants and it will be for the
inspector a due cause to recommend modifications if that's if that was if
that's what they want to do so it's kind of two strands there's an opportunity
for the council to continue engaging with people like the Highways Authority
and there's also opportunities for modifications to be identified should
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:14:15
that be necessary. Thank you Andrew. So I'm going to go to the next speaker now.
I've got John Forshaw from Driffield Parish Council.
Public Speaker - 0:14:34
Councillor Ebenmee. Councillor Norris who sends his apologies as he's unwell, who's
written to you requesting that CDC withdraw the proposed new settlement
south of Driffield from the regulation document pending proper consultation and
reassessment. I trust this letter has been circulated to members and I want to
highlight the key points. Driffield is an existing hamlet of approximately only 40
houses. The proposed 1090 dwelling development, more than 25 times its size,
adjoins it directly, including a sports field next to existing Driffield housing.
There is no space. A genuine new settlement is normally a freestanding
location, not physically or functionally dependent on the neighbour. What is
proposed here cannot reasonably be described as that. It is an urban
extension to Driffield which, with negligible existing services, could not
support this scale if assessed honestly on that basis. The land was also never
identified or consulted upon at Regulation 18 stage. It entered the
process only after Regulation 18 closed and with no comment to the
council in the meantime. Every other strategic allocation has had that
scrutiny, this one has not, leaving residents and the parish council with no
opportunity to comment on the principle of the development and now on the back
foot at Regulation 19. Given this, will the cabinet commit today to withdrawing
this site from the Regulation 19 document so that proper consultation and
reassessment as set out in Councillor Norris's letter can take place before
any decision on this is finalised? Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:16:32
Thank you very much, John, for your question.
I'm aware, I saw the letter from Councillor Norris,
and he will get a written response from me.
It was quite a long letter, as you, I'm sure, are aware.
And there were some matters which I need to take legal advice on
before I reply, because he's asking some legal questions.
So I'm not going to be able to answer in detail the letter he sent me.
In terms of in response to your question, no, we're not going to withdraw the site in
Driffield.
I think I explained or was explained by the officer on Monday that, yeah, we are going
to the Regulation 19 consultation.
There was a site near Driffield.
It was a different site.
I know that was mentioned, but in the Regulation 18 consultation, there isn't the process for
Obviously, consideration is Regulation 19.
In an ideal world, yes, we would have done
another Regulation 18 consultation.
I think as I said in response to the question
from Mickelton, but there wasn't time available to do that
in the timeframe in order for us to be able
to submit a local plan before the end of December.
So this site will be tested,
if the council votes for it next week,
will be tested through the Regulation 19 consultation.
You and everybody else who has a view about that
will be able to make the representations
that through that process.
We will be offering a meeting as well
for people from Driftfield to come along
and directly question officers and council,
myself and the council late.
And so, yes, I recognise that it may in drip fields circumstances, maybe a little different to most of the other sites.
And it will get a formal response to counsel Norris will to his letter.
Thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:18:50
In light of what you've just said, the residents of Driffield are effectively being now treated
as guilty until proven innocent.
It is our situation where we have to get enough evidence to take this out of your document,
But we will not be able to take it out as my understanding because once it's in there it will sit there and
Have to be disputed you will not as I understand it take it out once it's in regulation 19
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:19:19
So not wishing to get into a debate, I'll just give you one final answer on that that the process is yes we
Will put forward what we put the regulation 19 documents will go to the inspector
and the inspector will look at the evidence that can come forward on the site.
That isn't going to happen for quite a long time, probably not until some point next year.
So the six -week consultation will run and people will be able to have their say.
I accept, you know, that people in Driffield probably don't want this site
and I totally understand that.
We have to follow a process and enable it, which requires us to publish for consultation proposals and for the public to be able to respond to them.
And we will do that subject to the due process of this Council going through it tonight and next week. Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:20:21
The next speaker I've got is Richard Gunner, please.
Public Speaker - 0:20:36
Thank you, Councillor Evermy.
Given that the Council has declared a climate crisis in the past and given that we now begin
to see exactly how serious the situation is and is going to become with the rising temperatures
and food shortages, why is the thread of climate preservation not a key thread running
through the local plan. And the second question is relating to the very light rail. Is the
council aware and are the council officers aware that there is no intention to ask the
council for any funding for the project, but it's merely a question of making provision
that it isn't made impossible as plans are approved.
Thank you for your questions.
So the first one I slightly, you might hear later
in the discussion if you're still with us then,
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:21:48
the cabinet member for climate talk a bit about that.
I think there is a lot about climate in here.
There's a lot that we can be proud of.
You know, we've talked quite a long time about,
as a council wanting to have policies that were green to the core.
And we understood the importance of the local plan in that.
Obviously, you know, you might think that there's more to be put in when we get
to the consultation, if we get there.
You know, please have your say and tell us that.
But I think, you know, we've got a lot in here that is about how we want
to have really high standard development, zero carbon housing, you know,
much more public transport, active travel, all of those things are in here.
On the second point on very light rail, I can tell you that we are going to make an amendment this evening to the draught plan to include an additional bullet point into CP14, which I'll just read the wording out.
it will say to add as a third bullet point,
a corridor for a potential very light rail connexion,
brackets or successor technology
between Kemble and Syr ancestor.
So that will be in the draught plan.
Thank you for your question.
Public Speaker - 0:23:23
Thank you. I've got two questions. The report author confirmed to the overview and scrutiny
committee on 3rd of August that the transport evidence is focused on the development proposed
to 2043, which is 1 ,090 homes, and national highways are engaging on that basis for the
part. Does the cabinet accept that the transport evidence covers less than half
of the proposed allocation for Driffield and is cabinet satisfied that publishing
in that state meets the tests of soundness? Second question, the officer
told the overview and scrutiny committee that if the council cannot submit by
December it would need to start the process again and that a new plan would
be unlikely before approximately 2033. The Stroud district local plan was found
unsound in February 25 primarily because of unresolved transport and
infrastructure evidence gaps. The council's own transport consultants
described this in Annex B of the strategic transport assessment. What
assessment has cabinet made of the risk that proceeding with an allocation where
the transport evidence for Driffield covers 49 % of the proposed quantum could
produce the same outcome and cost the council its plan before the March 28
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:24:48
reorganisation. Thank you Catherine for your questions. I'm obviously we as
councillors we rely on professional advice but we question our offices as
you would expect. I'm going to go to the offices to give a view and then I'll
come back to Councillor Layton or myself to follow up on what the officer says. So
I think I've got two points was
about whether transport study only covers HART,
the initial allocation and not anything beyond 2043.
And is that therefore a risk?
And then the second one was about if that risk were
to manifest, what would we, is that a big risk to the plan?
So I'm going to go to Officer who wants to come in.
Andrew, yeah.
Thank you.
Officer - 0:25:31
I think there's three main points to highlight.
I think the policy is intended to suggest that there may be opportunity
for further development in the longer term beyond 2043. I think we expect there
would be at least two perhaps three new local plans adopted in the time between
now and then which would have a significant opportunity to consider that
in more detail. So there's one other point I was going to say which has
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:26:08
escaped me for a moment. About the Stroud local plan and the risk that we might go
Officer - 0:26:18
down the same route as Stroud. The timing, maybe I can make a comment on the timing.
I mean the the proposed new process for producing a local plan
The headline is sort of badged as being 30 months
But the guidance but that sits behind it talks about a number of things which will be necessary
So in reality the minimum is 40 months
But there are a number of the examples within the guidance which would suggest in reality. We might expect it to be longer
So even if the council started a new plan
immediately it would certainly be four years as a minimum for Cotswold to have
a new plan but the timetable we were talking about was for Gloucestershire as
a whole because we anticipate that the new Gloucestershire Unitary Authority would
want to have a plan for Gloucestershire as a whole and we think that would be in
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:27:09
place by approximately 2033. Thank you, thank you for your questions. I'm going
to go now to Tony Berry. Tony.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:27:25
Thank you very much.
Public Speaker - 0:27:28
In actual fact, I'm here on behalf of the Cotswold Community Railway, which you've just
spoken to Richard and have said that there is going to be an amendment put in, which
is great, which recognises the route for the railway and preserves it. So actually I don't
really have a question other than to say thank you very much and you have my full sympathy
for the government loading you with such a horrible task and not being prepared to listen.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:28:10
Thank you very much Tony. So I'm conscious of time, we've got two more people who want
to ask a question and I want to take them and then close it off. So we've got
Henry Kilworth.
Public Speaker - 0:28:34
and read. Thank you I have two questions. Firstly, can the cabinet member or officer
confirm whether the council holds written confirmation from National
Highways that it is content with the A417 and A419 assessment for the
cumulative allocations around Syrinsester including the Driffield
allocation at its full extent and if so whether that confirmation can be placed
before members before they vote on August the 12th. Second question, the
The draught local plan identifies the proposed new settlement
south of Driffield as a principal settlement.
However, at the recent overview
and scrutiny committee meeting,
the report's author stated that it would be better classified
as a non -principal settlement
and that its designation could be reviewed in a future plan.
If the council accepts that the proposed settlement
should not currently be classified as a principal settlement,
what is the policy basis within the spatial strategy
for allocating the development of around 1 ,090 homes, rising to 2 ,220 homes, employment land
and associated infrastructure at this location. Specifically, which elements of the settlement
hierarchy and spatial strategy justify growth of this scale in a settlement that is acknowledged
not to be principal settlements? That's it. Thank you very much for your questions. So,
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:30:06
to your questions. So National Highways and principal non -principal settlements
and go to officers on that as technical questions. Thank you for me answer the
Officer - 0:30:17
second question first. So I think I think the council is satisfied that the new
development would constitute a principal settlement in due course with the
services and facilities that will be provided. It will be it will take time to
deliver to its full extent.
So I think the question of whether the classification is
principal settlement now or later
is just about the timing of the scale of the site being built
out and the facilities being provided.
I think it's probably worth just clarifying, just in case
there may be some confusion, the classification
in the settlement hierarchy relates to the proposed
allocation.
It doesn't relate to the existing settlement
of Driffield. The existing settlement of Driffield is treated in the settlement hierarchy
as a separate settlement which falls below the non -principal classification. So that
is currently within the open countryside classification.
In terms of National Highways, there is a detailed kind of risk log which forms part
of the transport evidence which documents the process of engaging with National Highways
and the Highways Authority through the transfer evidence process,
which is a comprehensive exercise.
National Highways have been involved throughout the exercise
at each and every iteration.
But as I've said a number of times in relation to other stakeholders,
the engagement with National Highways will continue.
So there will be opportunity for further clarification.
Thank you for your questions.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:31:52
The final questioner is Neil White from Driffield Parish Council.
Neil.
Public Speaker - 0:32:12
All right, thank you. I haven't got any ...
...watch for Driffield and Haun Hill.
And the one thing that I don't know whether you're taking the consideration
is what this is going to do with Driffield. It's 40 houses, people who've been there for
years love it. This is going to ruin it. It's just crazy. I'm not talking about all your
rules and regulations that you have to comply with. I'm talking about...
It's ruining a community and everything about it in every single sense. It makes no sense
whatsoever.
That's all I can carry on.
You've said it very eloquently, sir, and you didn't really ask
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:33:10
us a question, and I think, as I said at the start, I do
understand why people are not, you know, people are anxious,
and you've expressed that view, what you feel about the impact
that this, if it went ahead, would have on the curriculum.
I think we all appreciate that and understand it.
And, you know, members across the chamber
when we discuss this tonight and next week are aware
that there are communities like yours in other parts
of the district as well that are feeling similarly anxious
and, you know, very concerned and, you know,
the emotions that you've expressed, I think we get it.
And you know, I think
Members must consider everything and come to a considered view. That's our job as councillors to think about everything
You know
We were elected to do a job and sometimes you get decisions like this are difficult and we will talk a bit about that
This evening and no doubt next week
And I'm sure that field will definitely be mentioned in those discussions
and we do get it and we do understand why communities such as yours feel the way you do.
So thank you very much for your comments. That's very brilliant. Thank you.
So we're now going to move to member questions and we have had a member question.

4 Member Questions

We've got Councillor Waring here who's going to ask a question to us.
So you're going to do it from there, John. Yeah, over to you.
Councillor Jon Wareing - 0:34:48
Thank you very much chair. So first of all let me just start by saying and
commending the officers and members who worked really hard on producing what is
clearly, certainly from my understanding, an infrastructure led draught local plan.
It recognises an important planning truth, sustainable communities require
infrastructure to be planned, delivered and maintained, not simply assumed. Across
the Cotswolds, communities are already living with the consequences of
infrastructure failure, existing promises that have just not materialised from
from previous development and the result is that many communities begin from a
position of infrastructure deficit before additional pressures that are
going to be brought by the implementation of this local plan. The
infrastructure demand, plant growth in terms of housing,
albeit housing targets imposed as we've heard already
by national government,
without any corresponding recognition by the way
of the position of infrastructure and the support
that's gonna be necessary to create
genuinely sustainable communities.
Economic growth, employment, town centre activity, retail,
but also visitor activity in terms of tourism,
although I would say this is modest and inconsistent.
But this implies that infrastructure demand should be planned for according to its effects,
not just according to its sources.
The draught local plan rightly recognises that if not properly managed,
tourism can adversely affect the environment and the daily life of local people.
And the challenge is to enable and manage sustainable tourism.
It also demonstrates through its place -specific approach to the Cotswold Lakes
that visitor pressure can constitute a legitimate spatial planning issue where
it affects the functioning of a place. However the plan contains no equivalent
core policy framework for settlements where exceptional and sustained visitor
demand has become a defining spatial characteristic of those places such as
Borton on the Waterham by -brain. Placing significant pressure upon local
infrastructure, the public realm, environmental quality and the wellbeing of residents. The
National Planning Policy Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is
to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
So while the plan contains a comprehensive framework for managing infrastructure demands
arising from housing growth, it contains no equivalent strategic framework for settlements
whose principal infrastructure pressures arise from the intensity of use rather than new
development. This isn't a novel proposition that I'm going to be bringing. The Lake District
National Park Authority, operating under the same MPPF, explicitly recognises increasing
visitor numbers and the resulting pressure on existing infrastructure within its own
local plan. Settlement carrier capacity, which is what
I'm going to refer to as the...
You get your question.
Sorry, John, please.
Well, I just want to make a point before I get to it,
because we had a meeting at this lunchtime
where it's important to make the point that carrying capacity
is not simply about managing the impacts of tourism.
The situations on the A429 in Moreton, in Marsh,
and Stowe in the world, and on the A417 through Fairford,
also illustrate exactly why this policy matters.
intensity of use arises from many sources. So I'll get to my question. Will
Cabinet therefore agree to amend the draught local plan by introducing the
principle of settlement carrying capacity as a strategic
spatial planning consideration through a new core policy, establishing a framework
for identifying and addressing settlements where exceptional and
sustained visitor pressure has become a defining spatial characteristic and
and ensuring that the long -term environmental, physical, social and community aspects of visitor demand,
together with infrastructure carrying capacity and settlement resilience,
are recognised as part of the district's spatial strategy,
thereby leaving an ensuring planning legacy for the new unitary authority.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:39:22
Thank you John for your question. Sorry I hurried you along a little bit, but you got there, so that's great.
I'm gonna go to an officer and then I'm going to come back to members to respond
But I do think you've asked a technical point about can we put something into the local plan that you described?
So I'm going to go to Helen Martin
Director to give a response in terms of your direct ask about putting something into the local plan and then I'll come to Councillor Dale
as the Councillor with the responsibility for tourism to make some more general points in response. Thank you, Helen. Thank you
Officer - 0:39:51
There are a number of policies that are proposed within the local plan that do
cover elements of tourism attraction and therefore the activity and business that
is created around that. I won't go into them in detail but they are policy 46
and 47 which deal with some elements around that. I think the upshot and the
short answer to the question is the local plan is not the primary place to
control that activity and development and we do as an officer level feel that
those policies go as far as we possibly can through the local plan. Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:40:22
So just before I come to Tony, I do think there is some stuff in the National Landscape Plan, is there not, about that already?
Officer - 0:40:32
Yes, there are a couple of policies, CB15 and CE14, which also cover that in terms of national landscape.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:40:39
I think the settlements that have the most issues, politely, with tourism are in the landscape, are they?
I think so there is something there, but maybe it's worth with dig that
Can you dig that out and send that to John so he's got sight of it, please? I'm gonna go to Tony now
Councillor Tony Dale - 0:40:58
Thank you, thank you councillor wearing
John we've known each other a long time and I know that you know, I know very much about both the
the infrastructural challenges in villages like Broughton on the Water and Bybury and
you know that I know about the very personal challenges that exist there.
Almost each day I get communications by all sorts of means, text, WhatsApp, email from
concerned villagers, they are all villagers and it is not just confined to Broughton on
water or by -way.
It also nowadays includes Sir Cerny, Sidington, Fairford,
Lechlade, Maisiehampton, dare I say, and many,
many other villages across the Cotswolds.
The greatest difficulty that I personally face,
and I will extend that challenge to my cabinet colleagues as well
is that the planning process was never intended, I think,
to really control visitor numbers,
which is perhaps the greatest challenge that we all face.
Ultimately, too many people in one small place does not work,
and it doesn't work whether it's in a seaside town or village or
indeed in a small village in the Cotswolds.
The mediaeval constructors of those villages did not plan that
they should receive thousands or hundreds of thousands of
visitors every year.
Given that, and that I have to say very emotionally and very
passionately, my heart goes out to all of those communities that
are over -touristed, which I think is a very reasonable
description, the best that we can do as we stand is to do
everything within our capacity to work to the regulations that
do exist and the planning opportunities that are presented.
I genuinely believe our officers who are the technical experts have done everything they
can within the local plan to extend those planning controls as far as they dare in a
way that will meet with the needs of the planning inspectorate.
And I genuinely want to ask and invite all of the visitors that come to the Cotswolds,
wherever they come from, however long they want to spend in the Cotswolds or wherever
they go, to respect it as if it were their own home, to think about where they stop and
where they park, to think about the parking regulations and the laws of the land that
do apply to consider whether they bring food or leave litter, to consider whether they
harvest memories and leave any footprints.
Please I would beg of all of our visitors to respect exactly the points that John has
made that if you continue to come to the Cotswolds and make life unbearable for our populations,
we will have to find ways to work with central government to limit tourism
visitors but at the moment we do not have those means. Thank you. Thank you
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:44:23
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:44:28
Tony. Tristan did you just want to add to that? Thank you I think despite the
fact that the planning process might not be the right
technical vehicle for what John has raised I do think it's really important
we don't lose the point and we find a way to make sure we do address it.
Bybury is a really good example. I live very close to Bybury.
Bybury has been popular for many, many years,
but since COVID it's reached a tipping point where it's not just busy.
It's absolutely ghastly and I avoid it at all costs.
Fairford's another example.
Fairford isn't a particularly kind of tourist hotspot,
but with the proximity of the air base, we've had quite an influx of,
call them tourists if you like, plane spotters, whatever else you want to call them.
I think the reality is that we are blessed to live in an incredibly beautiful part of
the world.
It's a part of the world that has got a global brand.
We can only expect visitor numbers to go up.
And I think it's really important that we get to grips with the fact that almost anywhere
within the Cotswolds could suddenly find itself on the wrong end of an influencer kind of
tweet or whatever they want to do that makes it a hotspot and unplanned and you suddenly
find yourself with thousands of people outside their house and nothing you can do about it.
So I think that even if this is not the right process, we should make sure that the impact
of tourism to local communities is somehow captured and dealt with in an appropriate
manner.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:45:55
And just to add to that, I mean, I know John, you christened the term or as far as I know,
christened the term TikTok tourism, because that's what you experienced in Boughton on
the water.
And I know that's what happens in Bybury as well.
And places that just become famous and people go there for
15 minutes and there's no sense of engagement or, you know,
some of the issues that Tony described happen because people
don't recognise the importance of the place where they are.
I think, you know, we know this is a challenge.
You're absolutely right to bring it to us.
I think, you know, I know you've got a survey going on at the
moment, if you want to plug your survey for you,
in residence in Borton to have their say about how volumes
of tourism is affecting their lives.
And that was something that we funded through the levy,
through the car park, the tourism levy
that we have in Borton.
And so we want to, you know, work with partners,
Gloucestershire County Council obviously particularly,
to see what more we can do.
I'll give you the brief opportunity to come back, John,
and then we'll move on to the other items.
Councillor Jon Wareing - 0:47:04
Thank you chair. I think the broader issue is intensity of use and this isn't
it doesn't need to be just tourism. We have you know I was listening to a
colleague member talking about the volumes of traffic going through Moreton
and how half a bypass is is a waste of money essentially because it's not going
to fix an issue. And so whether it's tourism, whether it's just volumes of people for all
sorts of reasons, particularly because Moreton is going to be the site that gets the most
number of houses. So the important strategic north -south corridor is already frequently
a disaster when we add additional homes to them. If this isn't a planning concern, if
This isn't something that should be in a local plan.
Where does it go?
Thank you for that.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:48:06
And I know, obviously, part of the things I'm sure we will get
into in the consultation will be about the impact on the A429,
some of the issues in Moreton and Stowe
and possibly other places as well.
So, but, you know, I think we do all recognise
that particularly your circumstances
in Moreton are not unique.
but they're the most extreme probably, but vivary as well.
And then as Tony said, other places that, you know,
are having significant issues.
And we obviously, officers have heard this.
We'll see what, if there is anything else that can be done
in supplementary planning guidance,
I think all the terminology is.
If there's anything we can do, let's see if we can do it.
I think what we can't do is change the plan for next week,
but I think absolutely.
And I would encourage your residents, your who,
Important to make the point about that that you've just made to us in terms of responding to the consultation
And I'm sure the parish council they will do so as well
To get that point
Potentially in front of the inspector as well. Thank you very much
So I'm going to move on now to the substantive item, which is the local plan

5 Local Plan

pages five to one thousand eight hundred forty two a very hefty tome of documents
but I will pass over to Councillor Layton propose the recommendations
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:49:38
six and introduce the report on the local plan Julia thank you well I'd like
to introduce this agenda item five which makes it sound like a small thing but as
Mike said it's a very large document and it asks cabinet to submit publication of
the Cotswold Local Plan at Regulation 19,
stayed to the Council and to confirm our intention
to submit the plan to the Secretary of State
later this year.
It's a major milestone.
The local plan is the central planning document
for our district.
Once adopted, it will guide where new homes,
employment land, infrastructure,
and environmental improvements will be delivered
for the next 17 years and beyond.
It replaces the 2018 plan and provides a modern evidence -based framework for
decision -making that reflects today's challenges and opportunities. The
plan before you has been shaped through extensive engagement over several years.
We've consulted on issues and options in 2022, the draught plan in
2024 and preferred options in 2025. Residents, businesses, statutory bodies
and community organisations have contributed to its development
through consultation.
Regulation 19 is the final consultation stage before
independent examination, and it represents the point
at which the plan must be complete, justified,
and ready for scrutiny by the planning inspector.
The recommendations today ask Cabinet to agree three things.
First, that the Regulation 19 plan is published for six weeks
from 24 August to 5 October. Second, that the plan is submitted by the Secretary of
State in December 2026. And third, that delegated authority is provided for minor corrections
and if required, additional modification schedule to support the examination. These are standard
and necessary steps to ensure the plan progresses smoothly. The timing is critical. National
Local planning reforms mean that any local plan not submitted by December 26th must restart
under the new system and that would delay adoption by at least four or five years.
During that period, Cotswold District 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.
We know the consequences of that.
Speculative applications, fragmented development patterns
and weaker infrastructure delivery.
Communities across the district have been clear
that they want high quality sustainable
infrastructure led development.
And the only realistic way to secure
that is to adopt the new local plan on time.
The plan also responds to the significant increase
in assessed housing need following changes
to the National Standard Method in 2024.
While the uplift is substantial,
the evidence shows that the local housing pressures are real.
The plan sets out how much of that can be met
within the district's environmental
and infrastructure constraints,
and where unmet need may need to be identified.
This is a balanced evidence -led approach.
And finally, adoption of the local plan in early 2028
ensures that as Gloucestershire moves into local government reorganisation, a new authority
will help inherit a modern up -to -date plan for the Cotswold area. This provides certainty
for residents, developers, infrastructure providers and the new council itself.
Colleagues, this is a decisive moment. The recommendations before you allow us to move
confidently to a final stage of plan making and secure the planning framework
our district needs for the future. So I commend the report to cabinet. Thank you
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:53:42
Juliet and I take that as a proposal speech. Seconder, Councillor Evans. Thank
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:53:48
you chair. For the government this clearly is all about numbers, cold hard
numbers that add up to a national target of homes that have to be delivered. But
for us this is more, this is about communities, this is about building the infrastructure,
the homes that our residents so desperately, desperately need of the right types, the types
that give our younger people the opportunity to buy a home and remain in this district.
Like colleagues, I hear and understand the concerns that have been expressed so eloquently
and so passionately and I particularly understand the impact that this will have on some areas.
I care deeply about communities and their future and that of all our residents.
This plan can and does provide an opportunity to build our communities for
the future in an infrastructure -led development, sustainable communities. Not
without challenges of course, we know the issues but we also know that our local
plan cannot fix some of them. Indeed it cannot fix existing issues. We also know
that if we do not have a local plan our communities will be ripe for speculative
development that is piecemeal that does not give us the sustainable
infrastructure that we and our residents deserve. In short we have to make most
of make the most of the hand that we've been dealt by national government as
unpalatable as it might seem, our district cannot afford not to have a local plan that
does not meet those targets imposed upon us. If it doesn't, and if we do not, those houses
and those homes will come forward and be built, but without the infrastructure that we deserve.
We have the opportunity to set a roadmap for the kind of homes and communities with infrastructure
that our district needs and to get the best of the hand that we've been dealt.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:55:55
So I'm happy to second recommendations. Thank you very much Paul. So members this
was considered by the overview and scrutiny committee on Monday in a meeting
that lasted almost four hours and so I'm going to go now to the chair of the
overview and scrutiny committee. We have got recommendations committee but I'm
invite Councillor Blumfeld to essentially summarise those four hours. Some of us were
there, but also to talk about the recommendations and then we will respond to those once you
spoke, and Gina, so over to you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:56:33
Right, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mike. I was delighted to see so many members of
public in attendance at the O &S, many of whom have shared their questions in advance, which
was helpful, and all of them made thoughtful and useful comments and questions. O &S was
a pretty good forum for this, as principally the answers came from officers, as well as
Judith Layton and Mike Evermy as the leader. I hope in future that more residents will
attend O &S and ask questions. We're welcome any time.
The main settlements making comments were unsurprisingly Down Ampey, Driffield, Fairford,
Morton in Marsh and Mickleton and all of their representatives in different ways were horrified
by the changes in housing numbers from Regulation 18 to Regulation 19 and some of them are here
again today. The housing numbers have been imposed on Cotswold
District Council by the government and with 20 % of the area in the Cotswold National Landscape,
That left in reality only about 16 % of the area possible for this enormous amount of extra housing.
The explanation for concentrating this additional housing in ten areas was to strengthen the delivery of infrastructure
required to
support those growing communities.
In members questions, Councillor Cawe asked a question about
about the infrastructure in Morton and Marsh, especially the proposed spinal road, which
Councillor Waring has also referred to this evening. When we went into our session of
members of ONS discussing the local plan, they were all highly engaged and it was an
open discussion and questioning of that local plan. And if I were to sum up their primary
concerns, they were about how CDC could ensure that the
essential and necessary infrastructure, schools, roads,
GP surgeries, sewage, et cetera, was going to be provided ahead
of new development starting wherever possible, and how this
infrastructure would be funded.
As in many cases, SIL and Section 106 money would not be
enough on their own.
As is mentioned in the recommendations, there were
continued concerns that Thames water would provide the necessary upgrades to sewage and fresh water services in a timely way.
Mike Eberme and Juliet Layton were both present throughout BERN -DESS and I'm sure they've taken on board the additional various points and comments
which are not included in the recommendations I shall now read through.
So the first one was to,
This is the first recommendation.
It's the strength and policies where tourism,
again, Councillor Waring has referred to this,
causes exceptional infrastructure pressure on settlements,
particularly in Borton, Orton and Bybury.
But it is also as well, and I'm even noticing it
far more now in Chipping Camp,
and we've got far more tourists this year.
The second one was to highlight the importance,
and I've written this in red,
of providing the infrastructure indicated in the plan
for the strategic sites in a timely way,
often before development begins
and where necessary using Grampian conditions.
The third one was to look again
at the transport infrastructure,
in particular locations in the district,
notably Morton in Marsh and Fairford.
And again, that was referred to earlier today.
And I'm also going to add Mickleton,
which has its own transport problems and is in my ward.
Four, 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.
Ensure that number five, the communications to the public is clear on why the plan is
necessary and the risks associated with not having a plan.
This is also referred to by Councillor Evans earlier.
In the 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 before development commences.
I've seen the note. I've only just got the responses to our recommendations just
before the meeting began and apparently that request or recommendation falls
outside the remit currently and would have to be developed separately. I'm not
entirely sure but that's no doubt you'll be discussing that further. Then number
seven is again note the wider concern at the failure of Thames water in providing
resilient water supplies and sewage treatment capacity across the Cotswold district and
requests that this continues to be highlighted to the government.
Eight, it was expressed concern that the national targets for new homes set by 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.
And finally, 9.
ONESS actually wanted to give great thanks to Andrew and Max
and the planning policy team for their efforts in recent months
in preparing the plan and its supporting documents.
It's a huge amount of work, a huge amount of work
to read through them too.
But it was a massive enterprise
and amazing achievement to get that done.
It was always to a very tight deadline,
which doesn't make it very easy.
So that was very impressive.
Since ONS, I've received many emails and comments about the
level of debate, its openness, and overall,
even if people did not get the answers they would have liked,
they felt they had been listened to and allowed
to put their questions.
And there really have been very positive responses.
So that's good, and I hope that that will continue as the
consultation goes through for the local plan. Does anybody in the Cabinet have any questions
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:02:50
on overview and scrutiny? Thank you very much. Before I ask anybody
if they have any questions for Gina, I'm going to summarise the responses that I know you've
seen that we're going to publish online imminently looking over at Nicky. So the first recommendation
was about tourism. There is an answer to the question on tourism. We've just
covered that in John's question referencing there about the National
Landscape Management Plan and what we were just talking about really in terms
of what we can do. The second question was about infrastructure so there's an
answer there and obviously we've got the infrastructure delivery plan alongside
the draught local plan with the schedule and the answer there talks about a
strategy for each area including a core strategy setting out strategic service
and infrastructure that's essential to support the sustainable growth and
references policies that talk about the infrastructure I'll just name a couple
64 water management 70 green and blue infrastructure so that's the published
there. Then the third one was transport infrastructure. So response there is that
that can be considered in parallel with the Regulation 19 consultation and where
we need to we can reference that in the statement of common ground. So obviously
work has been done on that but more work can continue to be done even while the
consultation is going on. On the access for all, absolutely we've talked a bit
about we've got four exhibitions.
The answer then talks about references
that we are going to be holding public meetings
for those people that are most affected,
potentially who live in or near the strategic sites.
And we got to follow our statement of community
involvement, which means hard copies of the documents
will be available offline in our offices
here and in Moreton, in libraries,
and where Town and Parish Councils have premises.
They'll be provided for them.
And we've also got a newsletter going out
to every household in the in the district in the last week of August.
And then obviously explaining to the public why we're doing it.
That's all part of that.
Those communications, particularly the more accessible ones like the newsletter that's
going to go out to the public.
Talked about the gateway you mentioned, Council Blumfeld.
Our officers believe it's not in the remit of the local planner.
This was raised by Councillor Cunningham, wasn't it, on Monday.
But we can look at that.
I think what he said is we'd have to develop a separate policy around that.
Thames Water, we could spend all evening talking about the water companies.
I know we have Wessex Water and we have in the north you have a different water company.
I can't remember the name of it.
7 Trent, thank you.
So, you know, essentially we note that and that we will, our offices will continue
to exchange with the infrastructure providers, engage I should say, and prepare statements
of common ground. But we do recognise that's a risk and that's something that I've had
conversations with both the Members of Parliament about and they both want to make sure that
the water companies across our district do their job and I know there's lots of discussion
and I won't go into all of that. And then the point you make about the national targets
is absolutely right and they don't reflect the real housing need. The
government says the housing need is the total they've given us but you know we
think that you know I think in our conversation we need the real need that
we've got desperately is for affordable housing and we think that the plan can
deliver to that need but it's also going to deliver to more than that in terms of
the market housing that we think we need, but we didn't get a choice on determining
that number we started with. And we would obviously echo your comments of thanks for
the officers. So thank you very much to you and your committee and what you are saying.
It was an enjoyable experience, I think, for us who were there and to hear from some of
the people here tonight, but also other people who are not here tonight. And that's really
important and thank you for the work that your committee did on that. Has
anybody got any questions for the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee?
Are we happy with... Thank you very much Gina. So I'm going to go back to...
So we now, before I open it up just for general debate amongst cabinet members,
there are a... We are about to publish some proposed material changes to the
draught local plan that will be incorporated and we will be including in our decision later
on when we get to it in this meeting. So there are some which are drafting errors, but there
are a few more substantive ones which I will just address. So in core policy three, we
are removing two non -strategic sites from the draught plan. Land south of Station Road
and east of Chandlers and land west of Delfin Way, Upper Rissington. The numbers are also
changing for some of the sites, so I'll mention the changes. Land southeast of Fairford in
Table 4 .7 goes from 53 to 55.
In Table 4 .8, it's three properties in Stowe on the world.
The land adjacent to Gryphon Court playing field
goes from 44 to 10.
Land adjoining Tall Trees, Odington Road goes to eight.
And the Hollies Lower Swale Road goes from eight to 35.
There also, which was omitted from the proposal,
which is land in Moreton in Marsh,
south of the North Cotswold Hospital,
a further site of 44 homes.
In chapter seven, we'll be deleting the reference
to employment land in Moreton in Marsh,
as we discussed that is not being taken forward.
In policy CP10, we are removing references
references to the, references to car parks specifically, and any sites referencing to
that. There's some changes around bullet points. This is in the Syrinsester Central area strategy,
so there's a lot of deletion there, and a minor change under the access and movement
bullet point, the second one. So it just finishes the use of land must be optimised.
The two more changes, one is the change that I announced early in response to the public question.
So adding into CP14 an additional bullet point which says a corridor for potential very light rail connexion brackets or successor technology between Kemble and Cirencester.
And also consequential amendments including adding a map to the appendices.
and then finally to CP60, and this was inadvertently missed,
so I'll read it out.
The highest level of protection will be given to habitat sites,
bracketly formerly known as European sites.
Development will not be permitted if it would adversely
affect the integrity of a habitat site, either alone or
in combination with other developments, and directly or
via functionally linked habitats.
That's the changes and we publish those.
Nikki, are we about to publish those?
They will be available online for people to view.
So I'm now gonna go back to the debate
and open it up to members who want to say something.
I see Councillor Pellegram, then Councillor Wilkinson,
then Councillor McEwen, Andrea.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm addressing these comments really
to people from Drift Hills who've come today.
I know that this is frightening.
I know that this is changing the way of life.
I've spent a lot, and this is my planning career,
working with neighbourhoods, parishes,
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 1:11:19
who were usually facing housing schemes.
They, all of my clients were just terrified
that they were going to lose what they loved the most,
which was their home.
And it's really sad.
And we don't do this with joy in our hearts.
We do this because we have to follow the law,
the planning law.
We must do this.
Change must happen.
The population must grow.
Our young people must have homes to live in.
And that's why we want so much affordable housing.
If we don't do this, you've already heard,
It will just be done anyway by speculative development,
but it will be done to a lower standard.
And the planners don't actually choose the sites.
The planners must assess the sites
that are put to them by landowners.
So it's not as though there was a grand scheme
that we were going to, you know.
And what we're doing is taking control of the situation.
And it is better than the alternative, strategically.
Strategically, this is the best way
to deal with the difficult problems we've been given.
Thank you.
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:12:46
We need to keep in mind that these aren't numbers on a piece of paper, these aren't
houses, these are people's families.
And behind every single number, there are people whose lives are going to be changed
in ways that they didn't expect and they didn't necessarily vote for.
And I think we need to be really mindful of that.
There's an awful lot in here I feel very uncomfortable with and quite screamish about.
But I will support it.
And the reason I will support it is exactly for the points that were laid out.
And that is I look at what happened to Fairford and I look at what happened to some of the
other places with speculative development.
In Fairford, when there was no local plan, we ended up with a couple of housing developments
built, absolutely no benefit for the community.
One, actually two were built on the other side of an A road that predominantly occupied
by families with children going to the school.
No crossing across an A road, so every single day you've got kids crossing an A road, going
to school and coming home with absolutely no provision for their safety.
And we also have a sewage works and water system that is completely overwhelmed and
no commitment from Thames Water for any upgrade.
This plan gives us the best defence to stop those sorts
of things happening in the future.
And although not perfect, and I think there's lots of things
in here that we'd like to change,
without it things get significantly worse
for all of us.
I think that the best we can do through this process is
to remain ambitious, remain respectful of the environment
that we are custodians of and make sure
that we create communities and not housing the states.
and that's going to be really difficult to do but I think that we shouldn't hide the fact that the
government has forced us to do this and it is going to change the environment and we need to
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:14:55
make sure that we are guiding it in the best possible way we can. Thank you Tristan. Mike?
Councillor Mike McKeown - 1:15:02
So I was going to say this is obviously an extremely difficult plan for me to support
because of the sheer numbers involved.
We do need homes in the Cotswolds, especially genuinely affordable homes.
My own three adult children can't afford a home to buy a home and remain in the place
that they grew up in.
But does not make the government's target reasonable.
We now plan, as we heard, for around 18 ,000 homes,
which is more than double our previous target,
and it's far too high for this district.
As we heard, 80 % of the district lies in the beautiful Cotswold National Landscape,
where development is rightly very restricted.
So the requirements, therefore, are concentrated outside it,
placing a very disproportionate burden on communities in the north and the south, as we've heard.
In my own ward in Kemble, the proposal is over 1 ,000 homes,
which would triple the size of the village
and fundamentally transform it.
In my view, it's far too much
and I want any Kemble residents here listening
to hear that very clearly.
But I would also make the clear commitment,
if this site proceeds, I will work closely
with those residents and the parish council every stage,
pressing for the infrastructure the village will need
and the design that respects the existing community and minimises the impact.
I can't promise every outcome, but I can promise to do everything within my role.
We have challenged the government.
I know you've done this personally, Mike, three times now,
and three times we've got the same answer that the target remains,
and we basically just have to get on with it.
So the question before us is not whether we like the target, either not.
The real question is how we best protect our communities in the planning system.
We've been given.
We can't allocate land as we heard from Andrea that's not been made available.
I'll reject suitable and deliverable sites simply because growth is unpopular.
If we exclude sites that evidence says that are suitable.
The inspector is very unlikely to find this plan suitable.
Some will understandably ask why not vote against it?
But that would not remove the housing pressures as we heard or stop these sites.
Developers would simply submit speculative applications and appeal if refused and without
a five -year land supply.
The tilted balance, as you mentioned at the beginning, would continue to favour development
and we'd face similar growth, arriving piecemeal and with less control over standards and infrastructure.
Richard made a really good point about climate change, which obviously appeals to my climate
change cabinet hat and he's completely right.
We sit here, look out the window and our green and pleasant land is turning into a browned
and parched ones.
Parts of Spain and France are on fire at this moment.
I think a bit of Sussex burned recently.
One of my villages was flooded this year.
Climate change is here.
It's getting worse and we will need to continue to fight it.
So I recognise that building on this scale, on the one hand, inevitably has a negative
impact from carbon and the environment, but the plan can't make that disappear.
But it does what it can to limit, and this is one of the things I'm proud about, the
plan, that every new ham will have a low operational carbon footprint throughout their working
lives.
And they'll use very little energy and no fossil fuel heating with the aim to generate
enough renewable energy to power them on site on their annual use.
The plan also supports sensitive improvements for existing and historic buildings,
renewable and community energy, another of my passions,
and sustainable transport we were just talking about part of now.
And these practical standards should mean lower running costs for the new residents,
better protection from heat and flooding,
and a development that is not locking today's problems for decades to come for us,
our children and our grandchildren.
So, together with the provisions for affordable and smaller homes,
strong design standards and planned infrastructure, this is our best means
for managing a bad situation and resisting speculative development. My vote
is not an endorsement of the government's target, it's a judgement about
the alternatives. The government has dealt us a very difficult hand as we
heard. Our responsibility is to play it in a way that best protects our
communities and for that reason, despite my profound concerns about the scale of
the council publishes this plan for regulation 19 consultation. Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:19:45
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:19:50
Thank you very much Mike. Going to Councillor Coleman now. Thank you very
much chair. I wasn't able to be present over in scrutiny but I did watch the
first two hours and I was very very positively impressed by the courteous
and patient way in which people ask their questions and in which replies
were given and I thought it as maybe has been said already reflected some of what
is the best about the Cotswolds. I've also been really really impressed by the
professionalism and patience and listening capability of our officers as
we at the sort of cabinet level have gone through the the first few hundred
of these pages and you have announced this evening some of the material changes that
are going to be made to the local plan as a result of that.
I wanted to highlight briefly, and not too high, that amongst them is a considerable
rewrite of the centre of Syrinsester, which I am very relieved to see.
I think we have the principles established there in terms of placemaking.
and we've removed some sort of a list of rather detailed possible developments in
the town centre which would I think no longer would now be out -of -date
proposals but I think there's great agreement in Sirencester we need to
have more people living as well as working in the centre of our town and
we're looking for ways to achieve that at the town council which I'm a member
through our neighbourhood development plan. It's very expensive this business
As cabinet member for finance, one thing I am certain of is that though the costs run
into seven figures, I'm sure, of doing this plan, and although we get a fair bit of money
back from the various developers when they put in their applications, there is a heavy
cost on this council.
This was the final point I was going to make, that our predecessors who were, and it's perfectly
valid from their point of view, a different political party and their priority was to
keep the council tax down.
One of the side effects of that was when they proposed their Regulation 19,
the stage at which we are getting very close to for our local plan,
their plan was called the 2011 to 2031 plan.
And they got to the stage, and I see that actually I was present that day on the 17th
of May 2016, when their plan was already five years or 25 % dead, passed, out of date.
It didn't help much, but I think it hindered.
It then took more than two years to get to the submission and the whatever it's called,
the making of the plan.
So by that stage, it was already seven years out of date.
At least I'm sure that that can't happen here because we haven't got that many more years
left as a council, but also because we're right up to date as far as we can be.
I won't share the criticisms of the government because they're well known and been well made
and I agree with them.
But I would like to thank colleagues both within the cabinet and within the rest of
our group and indeed within the other groups and independent on the council for the really
constructive way in which this has been addressed with patience and toughness really to have
to take so much of this as a result of a silly government formula where somebody told them
that if you build more houses and dwellings in the Cotswolds,
they'll become cheaper and people will be able to afford them.
Wait and see.
I don't think it's ever happened before in the Cotswolds
and I don't think it'll happen again. Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:23:36
Thank you, Patrick. Words of wisdom as ever. Tony.
Thank you, leader.
Councillor Tony Dale - 1:23:43
I almost wanted to tell a short storey because...
Oh, yes, please.
We've all listened almost with broken hearts to some of the communities which may, in the
words of their own residents, be devastated by the scale of the planning growth that they
may experience over the next 10 years.
Instead I want to project your minds, not just forwards but backwards, to 1984, when
a significant settlement in the Cotswolds. What do I mean by significant in 1984? Just
300 homes, barely that. It was bypassed. What happened? Almost the inevitable. Shops closed,
the bank closed, all of the supermarkets closed, a lot of the little shops closed. And of course
guess what happened then? There was the planning opportunity because of a bypass to add a further
50 or 60 homes. No, I mean 100. No, I mean 200. Actually, that settlement now has 700
homes. The settlement is now two and a half times the size it was less than 20 years ago.
And do you know what's happened? It has an extraordinarily strong community. It has a
It has a successful supermarket that has doubled in size.
It has a butcher shop.
It has a post office.
It has a pharmacy, a doctor's surgery.
I just want to open people's eyes to the fact that when we do get planning right
and when infrastructure and people work together,
the outcomes can be incredibly positive.
So I can only give heart and hope to those residents watching this evening and who might
get a chance to listen to this later on when they are feeling a bit low, but what is about
to happen to them can have some incredibly positive outcomes as well.
They are not instant, there is pain to go through as some things are lost undoubtedly.
But 20 years later, I can speak from personal experience that what was then a dying community
is now, I believe, one of the most thriving, loving and strong communities in the Cotswolds.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:26:22
Thank you very much, Tony.
I'll just say a few words and then I'll invite Juliet to sort of sum up the discussion.
Yeah, as members may know, I'm the ward member.
Siddington and Cerny Rural is the name of my ward.
So clearly the strategic sites in both Siddington and two of the ones are in the Preston Parish,
including one which is of significant size.
So I recognise that the residents that I represent in those communities in Siddington and Preston
and maybe feeling a level of anxiety about the decisions
that we are discussing this evening.
And clearly obviously, if next week,
we will hear more from them
and they will have their opportunity to speak
as we go through the consultation.
I think for me, this is really about having spent
almost the last year working on this,
We set up the oversight board, if you remember, a year ago.
I want to thank my colleagues on that, Tristan, Patrick, and Juliet, and previously Andrea,
for the work that they have done and supporting me and working, therefore, alongside with
the officers to get us to this point because it was no mean feat, I think, to get here.
As Patrick reminded us, our predecessors took considerably
longer to get to this point.
And essentially reminding people, and we talked about the
reason we're doing this, is so that we can have communities,
stronger communities, and the infrastructure.
And I just want to talk about, you know, the fact that we want
these new strategic sites.
Many of them will have schools, GP surgeries in some.
The real importance of green spaces, even in a place like this,
Cotswolds National Landscape or in the Cotswold District,
often the access to public open space is not very good.
There's footpaths, but that doesn't mean there's actually open space in many of our settlements.
These settlements will be built with proper green open spaces.
And we've touched on importance of roads and yes, to the point around Moreton, what a development
can't do is solve all the problems we've got already.
But I definitely will see the situation in Moreton to have a road that joins the 429
and the 44 where the new development is will definitely be a benefit, not just to the residents
that live if those developments go ahead, but also to other residents in the town.
It won't solve all the problems of Morton, but this is what plan development gives you.
And it's also so important on the points made about housing and policy in here that we want
40 % affordable and we want as much of that to be social rented homes because we know
that's the only truly affordable category for many people in our district.
And we've talked about, you know, the people that, you know, who are no longer
able to stay, and Mike eloquently mentioned, you know, family members who
don't live here anymore because they can't afford to because the house prices
are so high. So we do have that responsibility, but we also have
responsibility to protect the national landscape. And, you know, so we are faced
with a decision, a decision about whether we go forward with a plan that inevitably
there'll be some of our residents, we've heard some of them tonight, that would
rather we didn't go forward with. Or, you know, do we actually feel that because of
what that will give us, that it will give us the best hope for our communities
going forward. And I think, you know, certainly some of the comments made by
and others about speculative development.
You mentioned Fairford.
I mean, Moreton has really suffered from that,
Tetbury is saying.
And that was in that period, Patrick,
where we didn't have the five -year land supply
10 years ago.
Those were the developments that were going up
and people in those settlements are living with that now.
We can't fix that.
We can seek to stop it happening again.
So I really want to thank particularly Councillor Layton and the officers for
all of the work that they have done in getting us to this point and you know I
will obviously be supporting this and we'll be hopefully talking about it then
again next week when we meet with our colleagues across the council and have
the debate on this but thanks very much everybody for your contributions. I'm
just going to pass to Juliet now to sort of say final words before we go to the vote.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:31:26
Thank you and thank everybody for, you know, good comments, good debate and comments and
questions from the public because that's been really useful.
We've heard about the constraints.
We've got the Cotswolds National Landscape.
We've got special landscape areas.
We're constrained also by the fact we've got a Roman road which was not built for lorries.
we've got pinch points in Fairford.
I absolutely commend all the forward planning team
to get the number of houses into the areas
that are not within those, you know, the national landscape.
So we've been able to come up with the correct numbers.
We will be getting smaller affordable housing
and we'll be encouraging our young people to stay.
the housing with our policies will be energy efficient and we will get more employment.
That will keep the Cotswolds vibrant.
We've heard about people talking about shops being shut.
I've had many emails from various places all up and down the Cotswolds saying,
you know, shops have shut.
We only have tourist shops and the shops that we want are now closing.
you know the iron mongers I think that was one one of the ones that I had a few
few months ago was an iron mongers that was closing so things like that will
stay open there'll be opportunities for local people to have their local shops
we've got good policies in this document which will ensure good design good build
using renewable energy which is will be cheaper to run the housing our policies
ensure that we build for communities, social spaces. Our design guides will make larger
settlements, will make sure we have landscaping to respect the villages that are nearby the
larger settlements. There will be, we've seen landscaping and distance, so the villages
are not going to be totally encroached upon. At Reg 18, we had arrows that showed indicative
areas that we might be putting housing. And at Reg 18, we continued our call for sites.
200 more came forward, which I think we were pretty much surprised about. All those sites,
all the ones that we're looking at, the 200 and the ones we had before, are from our local
landowners and farmers. They are nothing to do with the council or the county council.
These are coming from our local neighbours and people who we live in and around.
Developers know all about those sites.
They know all about the numbers that we are considering putting on them.
If we don't have a local plan, they will get developed randomly, speculatively, with no
infrastructure, with no thought of community space and schools.
We can be looking at six form schools, primary schools,
we're looking at education, all sorts of things
with this plan.
And I really hope we get it voted through
that we can take it forward to council on the 12th.
And really I haven't got anything more to say about that,
but I would finally like to say that the team
of all the planners, the forward planners
and Nicky and her team back there, they have done so much work and it's been
brilliant to get all this done and thank you very much.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:35:16
Thank you Julia, yes. 7 ,000 pages, so an awful lot of evidence and I think
it's just worth adding that we have to have that evidence because the
developers who don't like our plan, who've got another site that they want
to put in, we'll be looking for holes in it and that's why in response to what
Councillor Coleman said, you know this is a massive investment for the council. We
are investing in this because we want to determine the future of our district and
we don't want that to be determined by speculative development. So it is really
difficult and I understand the concerns that our residents have and we will listen
to those we will engage if we agree to go to a consultation next week. So I'm
going to open it for the vote now. So the recommendations were moved to seconded
by Juliette and seconded by Paul at the start of this discussion. So they are
shown on page six five and sit the bottom of page five and start page six
on the agenda and obviously just to remind members that we're also agreeing
to these on which have been published the small amendments.
So can I open, can we open the vote now please?
Thank you very much.
That's unanimous.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:36:35
That's, thank you very much.
That's the, for all of your participation, thank you to the members of the public
and for the cabinet and to the officers and I will now close the meeting it's 7 .40.
Thank you.

There are currently no votes to display