Interactive webcast player

Council
Wednesday, 12th August 2026 at 6:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. Councillor Mike Evemy
  4. Councillor Mark Harris
  5. Councillor Mark Harris
  6. Public Speaker
  7. Councillor Mark Harris
  8. Councillor Juliet Layton
  9. Councillor Mark Harris
  10. Public Speaker
  11. Councillor Mike Evemy
  12. Public Speaker
  13. Councillor Mark Harris
  14. Councillor Mike Evemy
  15. Councillor Mark Harris
  16. Public Speaker
  17. Councillor Mark Harris
  18. Councillor Juliet Layton
  19. Councillor Juliet Layton
  20. Councillor Mark Harris
  21. Public Speaker
  22. Councillor Mark Harris
  23. Councillor Mike Evemy
  24. Councillor Mark Harris
  25. Public Speaker
  26. Councillor Mark Harris
  27. Councillor Juliet Layton
  28. Councillor Mark Harris
  29. Public Speaker
  30. Officer
  31. Councillor Mark Harris
  32. Public Speaker
  33. Councillor Juliet Layton
  34. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. Councillor Mike Evemy
  4. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mark Harris
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. Councillor David Fowles
  4. Councillor Mark Harris
  5. Councillor Mike Evemy
  6. Councillor Mark Harris
  7. Councillor Juliet Layton
  8. Councillor Mark Harris
  9. Councillor Tom Stowe
  10. Councillor Mark Harris
  11. Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
  12. Councillor Mark Harris
  13. Councillor Craig Thurling
  14. Councillor Mark Harris
  15. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  16. Councillor Mark Harris
  17. Councillor Mike McKeown
  18. Councillor Mark Harris
  19. Councillor Daryl Corps
  20. Councillor Mark Harris
  21. Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson
  22. Councillor Mark Harris
  23. Councillor David Fowles
  24. Councillor Lisa Spivey
  25. Councillor Mark Harris
  26. Councillor Nikki Ind
  27. Councillor Mark Harris
  28. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  29. Councillor Mark Harris
  30. Councillor Gina Blomefield
  31. Councillor Mark Harris
  32. Councillor David Cunningham
  33. Councillor David Cunningham
  34. Councillor Mark Harris
  35. Councillor Angus Jenkinson
  36. Councillor Mark Harris
  37. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  38. Councillor Mark Harris
  39. Councillor Len Wilkins
  40. Councillor Mark Harris
  41. Councillor Mike Evemy
  42. Councillor Mark Harris
  43. 06. Local Plan, Recommendations I-IV
    Status: In progress
  44. 06. Local Plan, Recommendations I-IV
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good evening. Welcome to the meeting. Cotswold District Council's full council. My name is
Councillor Mark Harris. I'm the chair of the council and I'd like to welcome all members,
public in attendance and those watching online. You're all very welcome. For those watching
at home we'll be using electronic voting and will broadcast the outcome of each
vote. Should anything go wrong with the electronic voting which cannot be
resolved we will revert to voting by a clear show of hands. So we're first item

1 Apologies

on the agenda is apologies. Nikki do we have apologies? Oh sorry. We have
apologies from Councillor Dillis -Neill and Councillor Helen Mansella. Councillor
Naomi Bloomer has also advised that she may be a little late arriving. Thank you

2 Declarations of Interest

very much. That's great. And do we have any declarations of interest? Anybody at this
point? If you find yourself in a position where any declarations you think, oh, hold
on a minute, I'm compromised here, then do speak up. Oh, we've got one from Andrea. Sorry.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:01:14
Yes, do you want to tell us about it? Thank you, Chair. For transparency, I wish to declare
that I'm a retired professional planner and director of Andrea Pelogram 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. From
time to time that work includes assisting councils to respond to local planned consultations. I
recognise that this may create a perception that my business role could overlap with my
responsibilities as a cabinet member. I maintain a clear separation between these roles. I do not
I use my counsel position to promote the interest of the company or its clients. 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 local plan, my company provided planning support to Honeyborn Parish Council during regulation 18 consultation.
Honeyborn Parish lies outside Cotswold District Council
and is a statutory consultee in this instance.
That work was undertaken by another consultant
and I have had no involvement in preparing
for submitting the representations or in seeking
to influence their consideration by the district council.
Neither do I nor the 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.
I have agreed with my business partners
that my company will not accept commissions
from within Cotswold District to prepare representations
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.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:03:06
Thank you very much, Councillor Pellegram.
Just for the record, I do notice that we're missing Councillor
Judd and I don't know if you know of anything.
Oh, somebody's been, no.
If you know whether.
Oh, it's on holiday.
I do apologise.
Yeah. And Council Maternal we don't have at the moment.
So, okay.
Thank you very much.

3 Announcements from the Chair, Leader or Chief Executive

Right. Various announcements now.
There's a few.
In order to maximise the use of available time,
I'd like to remind members to be disciplined in their comments,
avoid repetition, and be succinct
with any remarks they make.
The length of the meeting is capped at four hours.
And after three hours have elapsed,
If we get to that point, we will take a vote on whether to continue for the final hour.
Every effort will be made to complete the business at this meeting.
However, should any agenda item remain outstanding, the meeting will stand adjourned and reconvene
on Thursday, the 13th of August 2020.
That doesn't seem right to complete.
That's tomorrow.
Yeah, 13.
Tomorrow at 6 p .m. to complete the remaining business.
Couple of announcements.
So first of all, I'd like to welcome Mimi Johnson, who's over here from Deer Park School helping Democratic services
She's GCSE student looking at how democracy is done. So she's got a good meeting to come along to tonight
Normally August is fairly quiet
Welcome Mimi. Enjoy
the next item is
Councillor Laura Hall Wilson has made me aware of one of her residents Tom McEwen who's in Aachen this week
representing Great Britain for the
FEI World Eventing Championship with his horse Dubs or JL Dublin.
So we'd all like to wish him all the very best and hope that gold comes back to
Tetbury on Upton, with Upton sorry, and
the wider Cotswolds as well.
Yeah, good luck. In fact, I had a niece who won gold about 20 years ago
in eventing the FEI World Eventing Champion.
So, yeah. Next item is, excuse me, I just wanted to say a couple of words, if I might,
about the debate this evening.
As the chair, I share a lot of the frustration that I know is
in this room amongst members and the public.
Two years ago, government delivered what can only be described as a sucker punch
that caught us all off guard.
It shocked our communities, and it doubled our previous housing
target that we had in a perfectly good local plan.
We didn't accept this quietly.
We formally appealed the decision three times,
and our MPs have actively been making direct representations
to fight it.
Anyway, we were ignored.
The targets stand, leaving us, in a way, kind of forced
to choose our poison.
So poison number one is accepting this local plan.
It's an incredibly uncomfortable pill to swallow.
And I know it's made some of us feel quite sick,
but it's more than housing numbers.
It's about controlling the design infrastructure,
green spaces, net zero, and affordability.
But poison number two is rejecting it out of protest.
If we do that, we create a planning vacuum
and completely strip ourselves of our own powers.
We'd hand predatory powers in an absolute field day
with our countryside to developers
who could build whatever they want.
And remember that the land that is identified as available
would be built on whether with a plan or not.
And neither option feels good,
but a plan does at least keep us at the steering wheel.
But I'd like you to consider this, all of us who speak.
This plan runs all the way until the year 2043,
in 17 years time.
In 17 years time, Mimi will be 32, I think.
And I want everybody in the room to stop and think
for a second about that date, 2043.
And take a moment and look around and ask yourself,
how old will I be in 2043?
I'll be 77.
So tonight is about choosing the pill that
allows us to manage our growth and build homes
for the next generation, rather than letting that chaos
take over.
Now the plan we will be debating has
been developed by many officers across many disciplines,
liaising with many other agencies and communities with extraordinary constraints on this.
And it's supported by deep evidence.
And it's not the work of one person.
And as chair of this meeting, I will stop any personal attacks on individuals, be they
officers or members.
So let's keep our debates and the questions we're about to have respectful.
Let's focus on the realities.
Let's work together to maintain control of that design, infrastructure, green space,
net zero, and affordability.
Now, I've been asked about the eclipse.
We don't want to...
A break of 30 minutes, we're going to take a break of 30 minutes between 7 p .m. and 7 .30
to observe the eclipse.
As there is due to be a solar eclipse this evening, we will get to see an impressive
partial solar eclipse with about 90 % of the sun obscured.
So we'll take a break of 30 minutes between 7 p .m. and 7 .30 to observe that.
I respectfully ask that members of the public do not seek to engage councils or officers
on matters relating to the local plan during that time.
And this is to ensure that the integrity of the decision -making process is maintained
and that there can be no perception of undue influence
or prejudice while the matter remains under consideration.
The practical implication of that, and it does happen, is if people observe,
maybe developers observe, that members of the public have been speaking
to the decision makers, they can down the line, and this has happened, calling to question
the local plan and undermine their developments.
If members of the public have further comments or representations, this should be made through
the appropriate consultation process and in accordance with the meeting procedures.
On a health and safety note, we should cover this.
To observe a solar eclipse, you must wear solar eclipse glasses.
And I believe, I think we have a few, don't we?
A few pairs, if you'd like to do that.
Watching a solar eclipse means looking at the sun,
which is incredibly dangerous.
And you should never do it without solar observing
equipment.
Safe, certified solar eclipse glasses
philtre out the vast majority of the harmful rays,
making the sun safe to observe while wearing them.
If you do not have these, do not look at the sun,
directly of the sun.
and we abdicate all, well not abdicate,
but we take no responsibility for your temporary stupidity
if you do do that.
Members of the council who do not wish to see the eclipse
should go to the group rooms during the break.
That's me, I think.
I will now go to the leader with any announcements.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:10:02
Thank you, Chair.
I just have two this evening and observant members will note that as well
as those apologies that were given there's one other person who's not here
this evening that's Claire Turner who resigned her membership of this council
on Monday. I just wanted to you take this opportunity to publicly thank her for
the work that she's done for this council over the last three years and
the residents that she served in Blockley Ward and particularly I wanted
to highlight the excellent work that she did on the overview and scrutiny
committee. Her questions were always insightful, right to the point and she
really focused I think on and improved the running and the work of that
committee and yeah I just wanted to publicly thank her for the work that she
as a member of this council and the other announcement I just like to make
is just like to formally appoint Councillor Tristan Wilkinson as the
Armed Forces champion for this council. So any Armed Forces matters that any
members have please direct them towards Councillor Wilkinson. Thank you Chair.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:11:14
Thank you very much Councillor Evony and do we have nothing from the CEO? Right

4 Public Questions

Okay, so we now go to public questions. So what we've done is we've taken a list
of people here who wish to ask questions. What we're going to do is rotate around
the areas so that it's not just focused up north or down south or in the east
and so on. So what I'm going to do is start off with down
ampney and Councillor David Eggliese, chair of down ampney parish council. Are
you here? Thank you. Would you like to come forward and sit here and just so
you're aware, then what we'll do next is we'll then go to Councillor Chris Cotten,
Chair of Mickleton Parish Council. So if you get yourself ready. I think you
know the form. Hit the button when you're ready and the time will be shown on the screen.
Public Speaker - 0:12:15
Chairman, Members of the Council, Residents of Down Ampley are seriously concerned and dismayed by the proposed allocation of 1 ,658 houses to an historic rural village of around 231 dwellings.
The scale is unprecedented and raises major questions about flood risk, sewage capacity,
transport, local infrastructure, aircraft overflying and the potential harm to the village
character and its heritage assets, and its historical setting, including its Grade 1
and 2 listed buildings.
My prime question is how can allocating 1 ,658 homes to Down Ampley be reconciled with the
Council's commitment to protect the Cotswolds landscape, heritage and community character?
And will the Council publish the flood risk, drainage and sewage capacity, aircraft implications
and transport evidence supporting this housing allocation?
Summarising, the residents, as I've said before, are deeply concerned that a development of
this scale would fundamentally transform a small historic village and place significant
pressure on local infrastructure.
The proposal could increase flood and surge risks and cause lasting harm to the village
heritage landscape and identity.
Residents are seeking assurance that decisions of this significance will be based on robust
evidence, transparent assessment and meaningful engagement with the community
which they feel has been seriously lacking. We therefore urge the council to
listen carefully to these concerns, publish the evidence underpinning this
allocation and ensure that the long -term interests of both existing and future
residents are placed at the heart of this local plan. Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:14:19
Thank you. Thank you very much, David. I don't know if they're clapping you for your absolutely
impeccable timing, but if I can, thank you very much. And Councillor Evony is going to
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:14:29
respond to that. Thank you. And thank you, Councillor Eglise,
for your question. I think, you know, you put it very eloquently, the concern of residents
in down at me and I'm sure we'll hear about concern from residents in other
settlements shortly. I think it's always difficult I mean we're going to talk in
a debate later there's more houses than our plan than we'd like the government
said we had to plan for a thousand houses a year and we plan currently for
fewer than 500 so when land came forward and land came forward in down at me from
landowners in that locality, our officers had to look at that really seriously. And
they have to produce a bank of evidence to support an allocation. And they have done
that. Now, you might say to me, and I think from what I gather what you just said, you
don't think that evidence is robust enough or it isn't there. That's what the Regulation
19 process will do. You will have the opportunity to have your say and make those points through
that process because our officers have to essentially provide all that information.
If you're suggesting and your community says it's not there, then that will be taken into
account I'm sure by the inspector when he or she considers it next year.
But yes, we have to make decisions based on evidence.
We have to take our professional officers have to do the work to provide us with that
evidence and if it's not there then the plan won't in that regard would be not
to be found sound but clearly that's the process that we've been through that's
the process that we will go through if we agree to go to regulation 19 this
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:16:19
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:16:21
evening. Thank you Councillor Eberly. Councillor Chris Cottam. So Chris
there's a button on the right there.
Oh, there you go.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Public Speaker - 0:16:33
Good evening, everybody.
Chris Cottam from Mickelton Parish Council.
Not surprisingly, I have two questions to do with Mickelton.
Mickelton has infrastructure issues right now.
These will be compounded by any further development,
particularly on the massive scale
that the proposed local plan envisages.
The plan talks about phased development as a means to ensure necessary infrastructure is in place ahead of development,
but what does this mean in practise?
For example, there are currently three live development applications for land to the west of the village, totaling around 350 houses.
These will likely be the first developments to progress, putting even greater strain on an already overstretched infrastructure,
one example being the primary school.
The plan promises a new expanded primary school, but this is planned on land north of the village
as part of a new village centre. Will this new school be prioritised alongside these
initial developments, even though it's in a different location, or will developments
be delayed until appropriate infrastructure is completed? And what will happen to the
existing primary school?
Second question, the Middleton -Perris Council recently started building a neighbourhood
plan. A key driver is to gain access to increased levels of SIL funding so that local projects
can be undertaken in line with local needs. If strategic developments are to be zero rated
for SIL and developer contributions will be managed via S106 monies, then how will local
people control spending of these funds on what they want and need rather than what someone
in a planning team thinks? Failure to do this will result in Mickleton becoming a dormitory
town of some 5 ,000 residents who need to commute by car to access the majority of soft infrastructure
services, health care, secondary education, employment, et cetera, all of which are being
developed and expanded three miles away from the village. How is this green to the core?
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:18:34
Thank you very much. I tell you what, our speakers are perfect on the timing. Who is
going to speak to that? Councillor Laitin. Thank you very much, Mr Colton. I fully understand
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:18:49
what you are saying. I have got the little map here of what we have got planned for Mickleton.
You have got, as you said, your infrastructure now is a problem.
When we look to the future and building more houses there, we will be looking to infrastructure
and nothing will happen to make it worse because we cannot do planning that makes things worse
and worse down the line.
I know there is a lot of laughter.
It's very difficult when we're working with speculative development, which we
have got in Mickelton as well, and that's what will be much much worse if
we don't get the plan through. All your comments, and we've said this and Mike
has just said this, we need to have these in the Regulation 19 so the Inspector can
see what the comments and what the issues are and they can make a judgement
on that as well. NDP, that is a great tool. It's recognised in the local plan.
There will be S106 monies that go towards infrastructure through the
unitary authority as it may be by the time we start building, I don't know what
that will be, but there will also be SIL money and with the SIL money you get
more SIL money when you've got a neighbourhood development plan than you
do when you don't which is only 15 % so there will be opportunity to work with
the communities to build the things that you really want to see there but I
really encourage you to put your comments down onto into the regulation
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:20:33
19 when we get that coming forward thank you thank you council Layton I've got
Charlie Hastings. Where are you Charlie? You're around? Or it might be a representative.
Or a representative, I'm sorry. Who's gonna come forward? Yes, if you'd like to come
forward. And by the way, CIL stands for Community Infrastructure Levy. Can I ask
members to not use initials, but please spell it out for members of the public.
That's right, yeah. And then just just to keep it going, what we'll do is we'll go
to Councillor Stephen Andrews afterwards from Kempsford. Just doing good. Can you tell us your name and then go for it?
Hi, Henry Kilworth, I'm a resident of Driffield, I have two questions. Supplement B shows that cabinet deleted an
allocation, adjusted the capacity of four sites, inserted a new allocation of 44
Public Speaker - 0:21:31
homes at Moreton -Lash and added wording to two core policies. So the plan is
capable of amendment before publication.
At Kempsford, officers explain that where land
inside the red line was unsuitable for housing,
open space was located there,
instead without affecting the housing proposal.
At Driffield, plot R644 has an assessed capacity
of 3 ,748 homes on its own,
and plot R657 at 53 .68 hectares adjoins the village,
and the allocation must in any event provide recreational green space
recorded at 51 .7 hectares on the master plan. Will the council apply the
Kentford approach and locate the housing on R644 and the green space on R657?
Thank you. Do you want to answer that or do you want to get the second question
as well and do them both or you'll shout? I think I'll answer it. Obviously we're
going into how the master plan might be
if the Driftfield site comes forward.
And obviously that's a couple of steps ahead
of where we are now.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:22:38
But certainly those are the things that could be looked at.
My understanding from officers,
and I'll ask an officer to add anything
if I'm not getting this right.
My understanding is if a site is allocated,
we have the indicative master plans in here,
but they can be amended.
People can make representations about the master plan.
So what you were describing could it change so that I think what you were saying is they're more of open space
Maybe closer to the village and less
housing closer to the existing village
I'm sure that's something that can be looked at and the interim head of is nodding to me. So I think that's correct
Public Speaker - 0:23:21
Second question
As Cotswold District Council approaches the end of its existence, is this really the legacy
councillors wish to leave behind? The approval of a local plan that would open up numerous
currently unspoiled greenfield sites to development, including a new settlement at Driffield,
effectively a town in its own right, and land of significant landscape, agricultural, ecological
and historical value and a place with no existing services and infrastructure.
Given that many of these proposals differ significantly from those presented at the
public regulation 18, would it not be more responsible to reject this plan and allow
the successor authority to prepare one that commands public confidence through full and
meaningful consultation?
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:24:13
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:24:15
Thank you, Henry, for your second question.
I think the answer is our area is already open for development.
We lost the five -year land supply.
We will hear, you'll hear in the debate probably people later talking about housing allocations
that have been permitted because we no longer have that supply.
So essentially these sites could come forward right now. The discussion that we
will be having is whether we want that to be planned or unplanned. I will be
advocating that it's planned and that it's not unplanned. Should we wait for
the new unitary authority, if we were to decide to do that, the new unitary
authority will need to create a new local plan for the whole of Gloucestershire
by 2033. So we are hoping if our Regulation 19 happens, goes ahead this month, that the
plan that we are preparing will be considered by the Inspector next year and that the members
sat in this room will be able to adopt that plan before this Council ceases to exist.
Adopting is critically important because that means that then controls the development. So we're
we can do that within the next 18 months. If we wait for the new unitary authority,
you can add five years onto that. So you'll have five more years of speculative development
without the infrastructure that our communities need and deserve. So that's why we're putting
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:25:51
this plan forward tonight. Thank you for your question. Thank you very much, Councillor
Henry, thank you.
Come to Stephen Andrews from Kempsford.
Welcome back.
Public Speaker - 0:26:01
Thank you.
On the 8th of June, 2026, I wrote to CDC forward planning
and others in the context of the work currently being undertaken
to identify suitable viable development stats.
The email pointed out the recent activity
at RAF Fairford had highlighted the impact of noise upon communities around RAF Fairford.
In addition to using the then situation to illustrate the issue, the email concentrated
upon whether due consideration had been given to this issue in assessing the suitability
of development sites as part of the local plan revision process.
The email pointed out that Aria Tharford was the only military aviation base for which
a military aviation noise contour assessment or plan was not published.
It further pointed out that the availability of such a noise contour plan was an essential
element in making any assessment of development sites, suitability and viability.
A link to such an assessment that had also considered crash risk undertaken at Ellsworth
Air Force Base in the United States, which is where many of the B1Bs come from, was provided
in order to reinforce the importance of such an assessment that might otherwise blight
at such development where the impact of planes such as the B1B, the noisiest and most likely
plane to operate over extended periods from our EFF had not been considered.
Can it be confirmed that the Safeguarding Department of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation
within the Ministry of Defence has been requested by Cotswold District Council to do a full
JSP418 environmental protection assessment based upon B1B operations from the base that
includes the production of the aviation noise contour assessment in order that local planning
authority can assess the suitability and viability of all proposed sites in the vicinity of RAF
Fairford.
And thank you for the interview, sir.
That's all right.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:28:27
Thank you very much, Stephen. We were talking about this earlier actually. Would you want
to speak to it, Julia?
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:28:32
Thank you very much. Good evening, Stephen. Nice to see you again. Very valid points you're
asking there. We have of course been in communications with our AF Faford and we still are. Will
Will we have a copy of the bottom part of your question?
Yes, I emailed it, but I can leave one with it.
I think if you can leave that with Democratic Services,
because I think for that specific question,
we need a written answer rather than me trying to say,
oh, yes, we can do this, that and the other,
because that was very specific,
and I think we've got more work to do with RAF Fairford,
but we are in communication with them.
Might I suggest having spoken to RAF Fairford?
Sorry, we have a couple others.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:29:24
If you can just hand it to them services, that would be brilliant. Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:29:29
Thank you. Sorry about that. I want everybody to be able to speak.
So next we've got Councillor Richard Harrison from Fairford Town Council.
And then we'll follow that up with, we'll go, oh yeah, with Eileen Viviani from Moreton and Marsh.
Public Speaker - 0:29:46
I ask the overview and scrutiny whether what's proposed is really sustainable development.
I also ask the Cabinet whether we could have more time to list issues we're finding in
draught plan and supporting documents so that maybe these could be fixed before the consultation
goes out and got a negative response.
These issues include highway capacity through Fairford, a ridiculous assumption about mode
shift, and aircraft noise.
It's concerning that the site assessments, development frameworks and templates make
no mention of the aircraft noise issue.
My daughter got married last Saturday and we had the reception at Jenner's Barn about
a mile to the east of the runway at RAF Fairford.
The groom's speech was interrupted twice by B1B Lancers coming past on approach to
Landy.
Then at about 9 .20pm there was a louder noise coming from the direction of the base, another
B1 taking off in an easterly direction. It came past with full afterburners, a damaging
level of noise. At least seven car alarms on the site were set off by the vibration
and my ears were ringing for at least an hour afterwards. Just imagine, potentially every
day, our officers seriously saying they think the proposed site at Down Ampney, only two
kilometres from the western end of the runway on the direct line in the normal takeoff direction is a suitable one for over
1600 homes has anyone assessed the viability taking the noise issue into account
Maybe you think it's a suitable place for social rent homes think very carefully before you give an answer
It may not play well in the media or with government
We also suffer the noise in Fairford and other villages in the area
Apart from the take -offs, there's also engine testing, often in the middle of the night with afterburners.
We're told it has to be done then so they can maintain a level of readiness.
This seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, since the Americans are making a large investment in the base.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:31:58
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:32:00
Councillor Ebony.
Thank you, Councillor Harrison. You asked, I think in your question that O &S, the
process we are going through means that if we vote to agree to the Regulation 19
tonight, you, your council, people in Fairford, people in Darnampney will all
have the opportunity to make those points through the consultation. Picking
Looking at specifically about the aircraft noise, I'm very aware of that.
I live not too far from RAF Fairford, although obviously not as close as the people you were
describing.
I know Councillor Wilkinson has been talking with local communities about this and is very
aware of the issue.
I think that is something that we said in answer to the previous question would need
to be considered if what were the sites are potentially could be prejudiced by
the base and that's a discussion we have our officers have started with the MOD
there was a civic question that Councillor Andrews asked about as with
his expert knowledge of the defence infrastructure organisation about that
which we'll get an answer to but I think these are these are the points that will
test a local plan. You know, our officers have gone out and sought evidence. There may
be evidence that you and local people think isn't right or disagree with and will need
to come up with, will suggest otherwise. But essentially, yes, we are a heavily constrained
district. We have provided with this plan for housing to meet the government target
to get a local plan that will be tested through the process of Regulation 19
and then the examination in public next year. Thank you Mike and thank you
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:34:00
Councillor Harrison. We're going to go, oh we've got Eileen now already in place.
Public Speaker - 0:34:04
Hello Eileen, nice to see you. Okay, a tonnes, Eileen Viviani, sorry, Morton in Marsh. A tonnes, when
questioned about the lack of employment land allocation for Morton in Marsh, it
was suggested that the inclusion of five hectares of employment land was a drafting error which
has now been amended. And it was suggested that landowners are sometimes unwilling to
support employment land allocations. If Moreton -in -Marsh is not supported with sustainable economic
growth solutions, how can the LPA plan for 2 ,217 new homes to be delivered? Under MPPF
26, which will carry weight if this plan goes forward, how can this local plan to 2043 meet
the purpose of the planning system in respect of paragraph 16A, which says the economic
objective to build strong responsive and competitive economy by ensuring sufficient land of the
right types is available in the right places at the right time to support growth, innovation
and improve productivity and by identifying and coordinating the
provision of infrastructure. This plan fails to meet the requirements of 16a
and E1, providing the conditions for long -term economic growth. Councillors, do
you really believe that you're supporting a long -term plan capable of
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:35:33
enabling a sustainable future for Mortimer Marsh? Thank you.
Thank you Eileen.
Thank you.
Thank you, Eileen.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:35:47
You are up and down to the Cotswolds rather a lot this week.
There was an employment land, as you said, I think it was in REG 18 and it was in error,
so we have removed that.
We know that in certain areas it's very difficult to get people to come and fill the employment
land with work and work spaces that actually people would like to go and work in and around.
That's a really speculative thing I'm saying here.
But I think when we're looking at something going out into the future, into 2043, and
I think certainly since COVID, we've seen a huge change in how work patterns are.
We've got lots of people, lots more people working from home.
There are not so many people working in offices or they do part sharing offices and home.
And there is less manufacture.
So if manufacturers want to come into Morton, they will find space.
And we can accommodate that if it comes in as an application.
I would really again I really urge everybody who is with all of these
serious concerns I really urge you to put this in in the Reg 19 consultation
because this is what the Inspectorate needs to see. We have got as we've said
we've got a lot of houses and that's part of the issue with the employment
land and house etc and I really urge you to put these these comments in for Reg 19
so an inspector can look at it and can make their own assessment. Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:37:29
Thank you Councillor Layton. And we've got another speaker, Neil Roberts. Neil you
around? This will be a last question because we'll then be out of time. But
can I thank everybody for their respectful questions and... Thank you Neil
Public Speaker - 0:37:54
sit yourself down. Hi, Neil Roberts from Driffield. I have two questions hopefully
about water. Okay, go with a shorter one first. So Supplement 8 deletes the
allocation of land south of Station Road and east of Chandler's for the
stated reason that the Level 2 strategic flood risk assessment now shows high
flood risk. For the Driffield allocation the same study records the main barrier
to development as an absence of modelling for the ordinary watercourses.
And the site report states that the fluvial risk they pose cannot be assessed because
no modelling is available.
Will the council carry out the modelling that its own study calls for before the plan is
submitted in December rather than leaving it to the application stage?
Do you want the second question as well?
Core policy 64 permits proposals that do not result in a
demonstrable deterioration in water quality and requires
satisfactory improvement or mitigation to be implemented
in full prior to occupation where a risk of deterioration
is identified.
Table 8 .2 of the water cycle study records that development
in Anthony St. Peter could cause a deterioration in water
framework directive class and this cannot be prevented by
treatment at the technically available limit.
The study states there is no theoretical room for further improvement at the
works. How can this allocation comply with core policy 64 and what
mitigation does a council consider available? Thank you. Thank you very much.
Given the technical nature, thank you Mr. Roberts, of your questions I'm going to
ask one of our officers to respond to your questions.
Officer - 0:39:48
Hello, good evening. My name is Andrew Maxted. I'm the interim head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure.
Can I just double cheque everyone can hear me okay?
Speak up. All right.
Do my best.
If you will allow me on because of the technical nature of this, I think if you don't mind, I'm going to suggest that we
provide a written response to the question.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:40:13
Yeah, well, yeah, you make sure look I I did I did say that it's the last question, but I've actually got another
Councillor Adam Crawford from Down Amity Parish Council who wants to ask a question as well. So I will
Public Speaker - 0:40:37
Thank you very much.
Given that the proposed development of 1 ,658 homes down Ampere
on land conveniently made available to CDC by the Wellcome Trust falls directly
under the takeoff and low altitude flight path of military aircraft
such as the United States Air Force B -1B Lancer forward based at RAF Fairford,
I would like to hear what specific noise mitigation measures the council believes can
protect future residents from a representative daytime takeoff
sound level of up to 129 .5 decibels and a nighttime
takeoff sound level of up to 139 .5 decibels.
For those unfamiliar, the decibel scale is logarithmic.
So a sound level of 139 .5 decibels is not just marginally
louder than standard environmental noise,
it represents an exponential increase,
which results in every extra 10 decibels producing a tenfold increase in acoustic
energy and a doubling of perceived loudness. Consequently, 139 .5 decibels is almost at the absolute threshold of immediate physical pain and permanent hearing tissue damage.
To put this in perspective, an A380 in which I flew myself, take -off out of West Hounslow produces only around 85 decibels.
decibels of sound.
Given that standard acoustic double glazing provides a
maximum attenuation of only 30 to 40 decibels, internal
residential noise levels during nighttime sorties will still
severely exceed both the World Health Organisation Community
Noise Guidelines and British Standard BS8233 -2014, which
mandate a maximum nighttime indoor limit of only 45 decibels.
Furthermore, although in the context of the U .S., the United
States Department of Defence and Federal Aviation Administration strictly mandate that a day -night
average sound level of only 75 decibels or higher in proximity to such military operations
renders land, and I'll quote from the U .S. Air Force, an environmental impact statement,
entirely unsuitable for residential use due to severe degradation of health and safety.
Could I get you to ask your question, please?
Given that the U .S. military itself disqualifies residential development under these parameters,
How does Cotswold District Council justify the proposed building of what is in effect a small town in this location?
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:43:12
Thank you very much, Mr. Crawford.
I think you'd be
not at all surprised that I'm going to say we're going to get you a written response from that.
You had a great amount of detail.
I get that Lancer going down my driveway, I've only got a small drive,
if I say driveway it sounds like I've got a good a mile, but it goes
past my back door in South Cerny, that's quieter than what everybody is
experiencing closer, I realise that. And having been there outside
Fairford when the U2 went off and nearly knocked us over, and if you've
got those big planes, they are very noisy, I've got absolute sympathy
with that. The land comes to us, as you can develop here, we have to show
that in our local plan. If that land hadn't come to us as an option we would
not be looking at it, but we have to look at these plots of
land that are brought to, I think, who did you say, a welcome trust wasn't it? So
farmers, landowners, land trust holders, they are bringing the land to us and we
have to show whether or not that is viable land to use. We haven't had the
great detail from Fairford. I mean you're saying about running engines at
night. When I lived near Mildenhall they weren't allowed to do that, so things
have changed. Maybe it's war, not sure, but I'm very aware and I really
sympathise with that noise. It is unhealthy. You cannot have sleepless nights and putting triple glazing in does nothing to help anybody.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:45:00
Again, we will give you a written response and again, I implore that you put this detail in Reg 19, please. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Layton. That's brought us to a conclusion for the public questions and we move to
member questions now. Can I please ask members of the public though, if there is anybody who did have more to say.
It's really important and the people who have spoken please get your comments and questions and queries into the reg 19
Consultation because that's where it gets logged and lodged and then looked at by the count. I'm afraid sorry, sir
We have to go to the next part of it. We've got a long
I'm afraid I'm afraid
Please please discuss if you could discuss that with an officer give the details to the officer
Okay, and then we'll come to that but I must move I must move the meeting on I'm sorry

5 Member Questions

Now we now go to member questions. So do we have any?
We've not been advised to be okay. I'll tell you what sir come back come back sir

4 Public Questions

Come back because we don't have any member questions that buys me a bit of time
So if you'd like to come forward and ask your question
You can so my apologies for booting you out and my apologies to officers for really twisting up the agenda
But I want us all to be seen to be fair and reasonable
Thank you very much, Mark.
Public Speaker - 0:46:15
You probably can't answer the question as we are.
You commented at the beginning that this plan is supported
by deep evidence.
I've asked some really simple questions two weeks ago
after our first meeting.
There's been absolutely no response.
It's too difficult.
There are too many questions.
Well, every single question I asked was signposted
to the document to the plan.
Two weeks ago they remain unanswered.
Does that make you think that this plan is well thought out,
well researched?
I ask all of you councillors today before you go and vote
on this to say it's ready to be put forward to Reg 19
to have a really good look at yourselves
because this plan is thrown together.
If you can't answer 20 questions in two weeks
where I've indicated the exact reference points
of what I'm asking, this plan is seriously lacking.
And if you want to be on the front page of the news,
if you want to be in private eye as another council
that have been pushing something through because of pressure
from the government that doesn't make sense anywhere,
the whole idea that we've worried about these planners,
if you have speculative planning, these people have got
to prove the infrastructure.
They've got to prove all the things
that this plan does not prove.
So my question is, can you really live with yourself if you vote for this?
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:47:45
I will go to an office in a minute.
We actually have a record holder for private eye in this room, but I won't point out who
it is.
And we'll be on the front page of the newspaper either way, so we have to go with it.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:47:58
But Mike, you'll answer the question.
Yeah, thank you. And sorry, I didn't get your name, so I can't address you by your name.
But I'm sure them services will provide that. There have been a lot of questions. I have had
emails personally from the chairs of Harnhill and Driftfield, Mickleton, and
the third one, it's got out of my head, Down Amity Parish Council. And I've given them detailed
written responses, had many questions. I know members in the chamber have been asking questions
of officers because ultimately we have to make a decision tonight. Members have to be able to have
the information in order to make the decision. You're absolutely right. So they have been asking
those questions and it really does come to a capacity issue. I mean the process
ultimately is if we decide to go to Regulation 19 consultation you will be
able those questions you can ask them again or we will have them already I'm
sure they will be answered. The fact they haven't been answered I can't justify
exactly because I don't know what the detail of them but I know officers have been
doing best endeavours but they've been having quite a lot of questions
inevitably, but the proper process is we are here to decide whether we're going to do this.
And if we decide we're going to do it, then you and all the other members of the public
will be able to ask questions.
We'll be having events.
We're going to have public meetings for those people who are living in or near the strategic
sites.
So there'll be plenty of opportunity to ask more questions, to get your points across.
So the inspector sees them, you'll be able to make your points.
But yeah, absolutely, there's a huge amount of evidence in this.
We've done an awful lot of work and I am confident, and I will say that to this council, that
this is a very sound plan.
This plan can be found sound.
There's a huge amount of work that's gone into it and that's what's needed because ultimately,
for those people who just laughed, I would say to you, what happens is when if we pass
this plan, there will be people with an awful lot of money who will be trying to get their
site into our plan. The people who own the land, the people who have the options on the
land are the people that potentially could make an awful lot of money if their site is
in this plan. And we need to have a sound plan because we need to get the value for
people in this district. We need infrastructure alongside housing. Yes, we don't want this
much housing, but if we're going to have it, we want to make sure we've got schools and
roads and all the things that our communities expect. Thank you very much
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:50:43
Mike, thank you very much. Yeah we've got it we do have to move on now. No thank
you very much. Yeah right our next item is the substantive item and we're going

6 Local Plan

to go into it and then what I'll do is I will stop it about two minutes past
seven so the people can watch the eclipse if they if they want to and then
and we'll reconvene when that's done and carry on with it.
So the next item is that we're preparing a local plan,
which may come as a surprise to you
after the work's been going on just now.
For the 2026 to 2043 period,
this new plan will, once adopted,
replace the existing plan adopted in 2018
and provide a policy framework
to inform planning decisions in the district.
The purpose of the report is to make a series
of recommendations principally relating
to the publication of the local plan for six weeks consultation in August and September
2026. And then submission to the Secretary of State in December 2026 for independent
examination. And it's anticipated that an examination would take place during 2027 with
the plan adoption expected around 2028. And the first person to speak to it is going to
be Councillor Mike Evermy, Leader of the Council, and he'll propose the recommendation. And
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:52:04
you have five minutes and your time starts round about now.
Thank you, Chair, fellow members, members of the public.
Tonight we decide whether to publish the new local plan
for consultation and submit it
for further independent examination.
It's a hugely important decision
for the future of our district.
As you'll hear, this is a plan we can get behind.
We've left no stone unturned in looking
at the best options for our district.
Shortly, Councillor Layton will set out the considerable benefits that our area
stands to gain from this plan for growth. But in brief, it
addresses affordability while protecting the landscapes, heritage and character
that makes our district so special. It gives us coordinated, infrastructure -led
growth, affordable, smaller and energy -efficient homes and healthy
vibrant communities all delivered over a realistic time frame. It's also a plan of
necessity driven by our desire as a council to leave a responsible legacy for residents
and businesses.
Just over a year ago, members in this chamber voted unanimously to undertake a full update
of our local plan.
That's because in December 2024, the government changed the method for calculating housing
need as part of sweeping national planning reforms.
Our annual figure in the Cotswold district more than doubled.
Now, this new plan must address the requirement for nearly 18 ,000 new homes between 2026 and
2043.
That is, as has been stated in this chamber at numerous public meetings and on the pages
and airwaves of many local and national news outlets in the last year and 18 months, an
enormous challenge for a rural district where 80 % of the land lies within a heavily protected
national landscape.
And we've not accepted that challenge quietly.
I have written three times to ministers making the case for a target suitable for a district
as constrained as ours.
My third letter took a cross -section of dozens of local views directly to Whitehall.
We have engaged our MPs, sought to work with other councils in a similar position, secured
local and national media coverage on the issue and taken legal advice on whether the target
itself could be challenged.
But the Government has been consistent in their response.
They say, update your local plan.
and no area has successfully challenged nationally prescribed housing need.
So the choice is clear now, as it was when we met last summer,
plan for growth or allow others to decide for us.
Those changes to national policy reduced our housing land supply overnight
from over seven years to just 1 .8.
That triggers what planners call the tilted balance.
In plain English, speculative housing applications must now be looked on more favourably,
regardless of whether they conflict with our existing adopted plan.
If we refuse those applications without grants that can withstand appeal,
the odds are stacked against us when it comes to defending those decisions.
That can cost substantial sums of money as well as time,
and local taxpayers are carrying the risk.
And the consequences are already being felt.
Kingshill Lane on the edge of Syrincestor,
we refused similar schemes on the same site, but we had to approve 280 homes.
In Meikleton, there have been separate proposals for 95, 60 and up to 170 homes have come forward
on sites that aren't in the current plan.
Earlier this year in Mortner Marsh, we refused a proposal for 195 homes.
We couldn't defend it successfully at appeal after the national policy changed again.
Shortly after that, an inspector overturned our refusal of 54 homes at Lechlade, while
in February, 30 homes outside Willersey's development boundary were approved under the
tilted balance.
And at Preston, in my own ward, a developer is currently preparing to submit an application
for 380 homes on land which would be largely open space if we adopt this plan.
These are different places bringing the same warning, growth won't wait.
Without a plan, it comes site by site, appeal by appeal, with the infrastructure negotiated
development by development.
That creates a patchwork of estates, not communities.
Nor will growth wait for local government reorganisation in 2028.
We've got to submit this plan by December this year.
We missed that guideline and we'll start again under a new system.
We're unlikely to see a plan until 2033.
Five years later under this plan and with all the implications for our communities.
We know what happens when a council loses control of its housing land supply.
We saw it a decade ago, 300 homes in Tethbury, 120 in Fethbert, 100 in Boulton on the water.
More than in March, 819 homes built that had already been built or committed before the
emerging strategy then was put into place.
In each case, the absence of an up -to -date plan or five -year housing supply weakened
the council's ability to control development.
Whatever we view of the target, local people deserve a fair chance to rent or buy and build
their future here.
This is a plan we can and must get behind.
It's not perfect.
It's made a lot of difficult decisions and I understand the concerns of communities.
There will be a consultation, as I said, if we give it the go ahead tonight.
I want to thank everyone who's worked on it.
Chair, to conclude, will growth in our district be shaped by a plan made locally with infrastructure
communities as it parts, or will growth be shaped by a succession of speculative application
brought forward by developers and landowners?
I choose the former.
I choose the plan.
Thank you, Chair.
Members.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:57:31
Thank you, Mike.
And I know that you've had sleepless nights over this,
and it's been exceedingly hard for you.
So thank you for that.
Now, I'm just looking at the clock.
It's one minute two.
I believe the eclipse is seven minutes past,
something like that, so.
Twelve minutes past.
Well, we could, yeah.
I suggest we break now.
we come back at 7 .30 and see you back in here and don't look directly at the sun, all right?

6 Local Plan

Councillor Mark Harris - 0:58:15
Guess what will be on the front page of the newspapers tomorrow? The local plan.
Okay. Thank you, David.
The sub -editor over there.
So we've heard the leader's proposal to recommendation.
The second item we come to just while next up is to ask
if there are any questions for clarity.
Now these aren't questions of like, you know,
why are you doing this, it must be mad.
This is I didn't understand what you said
about the government making us increase our allowance.
Is there anything you misunderstand about what he said?
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:58:59
Councillor David Fowles - 0:59:00
David, and if you could stand up, please.
Thank you, Chairman.
I've got two questions, really, based
on what the speakers have said.
The first is -
David, it's a question for what Mike said, not for what
previous speakers.
About Mike.
My question is, how have we got this far in respect
of Down Antony, Driffield, and Fairford,
when we seem to have so little information about what's
going on with the MOD?
and this huge issue there with noise pollution.
I wondered what the process is now, if Mike could clarify that.
That's question number one.
And question number two is we keep on saying to representatives
from the town and parish councils,
could they make sure they put their concerns in detail
so that we can submit those to government as part of Reg 19.
Are we going to in any way link our report to those questions? We were applauding every single speaker and I wondered whether we're going to endorse in any way shape or form the comments from our residents.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:00:09
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:00:14
Thanks. Mike, it's not quite asking for clarification on what you said but I think we can grace it with an answer.
I'll give Councillor Fowles the licence on this one, I'm sure you will.
So in terms of the information, our officers, and you were O &S David,
our officers replied to the fact that they have been in discussion with the MOD.
What they also said was that those discussions will continue.
Clearly, you know, as Councillor Layton said in the answer to the previous question,
The circumstances around noise have got worse in the last few months particularly with obviously
the war in the Middle East.
And obviously that's affecting people who live in Fairford and Down Amity already.
So clearly, that is an issue that has become more salient in the last few months, but clearly
probably residents in Down Amity might say it's always been an issue to a degree, but
people have lived next door to an air base.
So I think the answer to that is that the officers will continue to engage with the MOD on it
I know certainly the member of Parliament South Cotswolds has asked
for the MOD to produce the noise map that
The councillor from Dan Amme was asking for as well
So actually that that process can continue while we go through the regulation 19 process and beyond if that's what the council
determines to
decide this evening. In response to your second question, I was listening to the public speakers.
I wasn't applauding them. I think we're here to listen to what people have to say and make
a judgement. We understand the emotion potentially involved of a potential massive change to
some of our settlements from what's in the plan. The way we do it is this is our plan.
If we decide and we agree on that this evening, then it will go to consultation.
Everybody can have their say on it.
And then that will all go to the inspector.
And the inspector will then decide what they want to look at.
And if they want to look at particular issues that the people tonight have raised, then
they'll have the opportunity to have their say and make those points in front of an inspector.
And then the inspector will determine whether our plan is sound or not.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:02:33
Thank you. Any other, any confusion out there at the moment apart from the, no? Good. Thank you very much.
Apart from that, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that at all. Trying to resist the temptation.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:02:49
Councillor Layton, you're seconding this. Would you like to reserve your right to speak or would you like to speak now?
I'd like to speak now, please. Thank you.
So Mike has explained why we need a plan and why we need it now. I want to explain why
this plan deserves our support. It's been developed over several years and shaped through
three major consultations in 2022, 2024 and 2025, which generated more than 14 ,000 comments.
Communities, councils, businesses, young people and statutory bodies all contributed and we
listened. People asked for infrastructure with development, smaller and more affordable
homes, protection for landscape, heritage and village identity, serious action on flooding,
waste water, better walking, cycling and public transport and higher standards of design.
Listening is not simply holding a consultation.
It's about taking what people tell us,
looking at the options, considering the evidence,
and turning that into enforceable policy to guide growth.
Since last November's consultation
on strategic development options,
feedback has shaped detailed frameworks
for every strategic site,
all backed up by evidence on infrastructure, transport,
flooding, landscape, heritage and delivery. Now this full and comprehensive plan
makes three clear promises. First to deliver homes that local people need. On
developments of 10 or more homes 40 % will be affordable. Smaller schemes in
the designated rural area will also contribute. The affordable mix is also
well -defined, 60 % social rent, 20 % affordable rent and 20 %
intermediate housing. The evidence shows this can meet the district's full need
for around 5 ,600 affordable homes over the next 17 years. The plan also requires
more two and three bedroom homes and these will be homes for care workers,
teachers, teaching assistants, and young families.
Not more large houses that are beyond the reach of
local people.
Every home must meet national space standards.
At least half must be accessible and adaptable
with further wheelchair provision.
These are homes for local people and their changing needs.
Second, to deliver homes fit for the future.
In plain English, our climate policies say,
build homes that use far less energy, move beyond fossil fuel
heating, generate renewable energy, manage heat and water
responsibly, and ensure homes are designed
for changing climate.
This plan will require homes to be net zero carbon in operation,
more efficient and less exposed to volatile energy costs.
Then there are wider policies requiring development to restore nature, make walking and cycling
easier, protect landscape and heritage, and provide useful green space.
This is green to the core, turned into rules.
Third, it will deliver infrastructure that speculative schemes cannot provide.
Across 10 strategic sites, the plan provides for nine new or
expanded primary schools and two new secondary schools,
nine local centres or community hubs, better busses, walking,
and cycling routes, sports and play provision,
and essential utility upgrades.
Five strategic sites alone will provide at least 137 hectares of
natural recreation space and that's before parks, playing fields, green
corridors, orchards, woodlands and other open space across all ten sites are
considered. These aren't attractive extras in a developer's brochure, they
are policy requirements secured through master plans, phasing, conditions and
legal agreements. It is the difference between counting houses and creating
places. What's more, the delivery plan is honest and realistic. Strategic sites
need time for schools, roads and utilities to be in place. Delivery begins
at 420 homes a year for five years, the current rate in our adopted plan. Then it
rises as sites and infrastructure come on stream. It still meets the full
requirement by 2043, but through a trajectory that can actually be delivered.
And importantly, growth is focused on places that are sustainable or can be made sustainable
rather than scattered without a plan.
Mike spoke about building communities, not simply estates.
A community has homes people can afford, schools near families, jobs near homes, green space
for everyone and places to meet, play and belong. This is the standard this plan
sets. Ambitious on affordability, climate design, design, nature, infrastructure and
health. Members, we can choose well -planned places, properly supported
communities and a better legacy for the Cotswolds. I'm proud to second this
and I urge members of this council to do the same.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:08:40
Thank you, Juliette.
Okay. We'll go to debate now.
So my colleague is going to keep an eye out for you.
And so Tom.
Councillor Tom Stowe - 1:08:55
Yes, thank you, Chair.
And I'd like to begin by thanking the council's Forward
Planning Team for their efforts in producing this document.
It is clear that an enormous amount of work has gone into it under incredibly testing
circumstances.
This document is a Cotswold local plan in name only, underpinned by the ridiculous housing
numbers imposed on this district by the Labour government, a plan attempting to shoehorn
18 ,000 homes into a handful of locations.
The Regulation 18 consultation began to show what the impact of this would look like.
It rightly caused alarm across the district that the proposals in this Regulation 19 draught
are far worse than many could have anticipated.
The Lib Dems' position is baffling.
After first challenging the government about the ridiculous, unsustainable housing targets,
they have now fallen into line and are unveiling a plan that does exactly what Labour told
them to do.
A plan they say they can stand behind.
Well, it's not a plan that I can stand behind.
These proposals will destroy communities, cause irreversible harm to residents' wellbeing
and ruin the character of vast swathes of our districts, a district to which it is our
duty to protect. In terms of infrastructure the plan does not provide
enough realistic evidence to properly test whether the infrastructure required
to support this level of development is a viable. We have a wish list of
infrastructure supported by high level cost estimates totaling 420 million.
There are huge vagaries in this information. An example is a local hub
proposal for Mickelton. This includes some GP services, whatever that means, schools
and retail offerings and the indicative high level cost currently at zero. We
We have no idea if anything is going to be delivered or how much it's going to cost.
Somebody at some point has to pay.
The figures that were included are best guesses based on today's costs.
They make no meaningful allowance for where the economy may be in five years, let alone
in 2043.
We know how volatile construction costs have been.
We also have a stagnant economy and a weakening housing market which are already putting pressure
on development viability.
The reality is that when the push comes to the shove, developers will say they cannot fund everything.
Deals will be done, contributions will be negotiated down, infrastructure will be delayed, reduced or simply not delivered.
The same goes for affordable housing. The 40 % figure is nearly aspirational.
What is going to happen when the developers say they can't afford to deliver 40 % as they're having to fund infrastructure instead?
They can only deliver 20 % or even 10%. This will happen.
There is a huge concern about this plan from across the district. I'm going to
focus on Mickelton where I represent as part of the Camden Vale Ward.
Representations made during the consultation process by Mickelton
residents, Maine and the parish council have been completely ignored. Repeated
requests for meetings of cabinet members went unanswered. I was copied into an
email last week in which Mickelton said it felt it had been ambushed by these
proposals. I could not put it better myself. Under regulation 18, Mickelton was
facing around 600 homes. It is now being earmarked for 1450, potentially bringing
around 3 ,000 additional people into the village. Where will they go when they need a
GP or hospital treatment? Who knows. Where on earth will they work? There are no new
employment sites proposed in Mickleton and we've also heard Morton. There
appears to have been no consideration of the cumulative impacts of recent and
future development immediately across the Warwickshire border. The B4632 is
already overwhelmed. Add another 1450 homes in Mickleton and the consequences
for the road network are obvious. Getting into Stratford will become impossible.
Meckleton will be transformed from a village into a small town with thousands
of additional residents trapped in a location where the infrastructure simply
cannot support. These are not minor details, they are fundamental questions
and they remain unanswered. They have been raised by residents and ignored.
It's the same storey for communities across the district. Development of this scale
as proposed by this plan is not justified, deliverable or sustainable. We
have two choices we head towards adoption of this plan or we postpone or
abandon the plan. I very carefully consider these options and listen to
residents concerns. In the case of Mickleton an extension to the plan
period could not in the long term deliver any worse an outcome than what
this plan is proposing. We need to revisit the numbers and reduce them to
a manageable and sustainable level not just in Mickleton but in all of the
communities being asked to take such a disproportionate level of developments.
If this plan is adopted the course is set. If we postpone or revisit it there
is at least an opportunity for common sense to prevail and for some sort of damage to
be mitigated. It could happen through a change in government and national policy. Or, now
that we know the direction of travel of LGR, there is an opportunity to embed this process
in the transition so a new unitary once formed can prioritise developing a genuinely strategic
county -wide plan for the new unitary authority so that housing can be delivered in more sensible
and sustainable locations. It can't be right that a decision of this magnitude which will
impact the district for decades and beyond is taken by a council that will
be disbanded within 18 months. There'll be no accountability from members here
for the impact of this decision or managing its implementation. This plan is
no legacy for CDC to leave behind. On behalf of residents of the Camden Vale
Ward and many other communities across the district that will be deeply affected
by these proposals, we can't just roll over and rubber stamp these numbers
imposed by this rotten government. It is a resounding no from me.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:14:11
Thank you Tom. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Councillor Paul Hodgkinson - 1:14:16
Councillor Hodgkinson next. Yeah thank you very much and I just wanted to
mention a few things about the plan. First of all I want to thank the offices
and councillors who put such a tremendous amount of work into
developing these proposals. However I do remain deeply concerned about the scale
of the housing requirement that's been imposed on the district and it's
important to know that who has imposed it. It is the government who's imposed this figure.
The Labour government has set this target, 18 ,000 new homes to be delivered across the
Cotswold District over the next 20 years, and I firmly believe this figure is simply
too high because it does not take into account the unique constraints of our district, 80 %
of which lies within the protected area. Now, I'd like to thank Mike for writing to the
and instead of berating him, I want to thank him, because not only did Mike write to the
government once, he wrote them three times, challenging the figures, yet they have not
listened. And I wrote last week with Rod Savage MP, the two of us wrote together, to the Prime
Minister, to Angela Rayner, and to the Right Honourable Matthew Pennycook, to actually
voice our concerns about this too. We hope he's going to listen, but he may not. Because
basically what we're looking at here is a government that's not recognising the
reality of this district. Now I firmly and strongly believe in the principle of
infrastructure first because existing communities like Morton in the Marsh,
Morton in Marsh, Fairford, Meckleton already face significant pressures on
their local infrastructure because before any new housing is approved what
the national legislation should say is there has to be meaningful investment in
roads, in healthcare, in schools, in public transport, in utilities. That's what the government
should be saying. Water and sewage infrastructure is similar because so many communities across
our district are continuing to experience third world problems with sewage and of course
in the case of Sire ancestor recently, water outages as well. So in their capacities as
Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Housing and local government, they have repeatedly
said they want to listen to communities. I welcome that commitment but they need
to start listening. I'm not arguing against new homes because I recognise
the pressing need for affordable housing that enables young people to stay in our
area. That's key and that's why Ross and I support the call for a reconsideration
of the housing requirement for the Cotswold District. Now specifically
around Morton and Meckleton. I think every time I drive through Morton, you can see the
problems for yourself. You can see how long you are stuck in traffic jams. You understand
the issues. So I would like to see this plan more robust in terms of traffic issues. And
secondly, with regard to Meckleton that's being talked about, there are many, many things
there that concern me really in that village and what's being suggested. Because obviously
you have what I would refer to as the cross -border community,
communicative impact. When you look across the boundary into Warwickshire
and Worcestershire, there is already building going on very close to that
border which we must take into account. We know about the infrastructure gap in
the North Cotswolds too. No secondary school, no permanent GP or dentist and I
just want to put those concerns on the record here and I will be raising those
during the consultation period.
But finally, and I just want to encapsulate this,
that the Labour government has got this wrong.
It has to be infrastructure first.
Mr. Burnham, you are not listening to us
in the consorts.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:18:17
Councillor Craig Thurling - 1:18:24
Thank you very much Paul. Craig you're next. Councillor Thill. Thank you. So although I'm
the member for the Rissington's I actually live in Moreton Marsh so I'd
like to begin by making it clear that I'm not opposed to development nor do I
oppose the principle of having a local plan. What I oppose is the plan of this
scale being taken forward before the certainty that the infrastructure
services and protections needed to support it will actually be delivered.
Moreton currently has a population of around 5 ,000 people and approximately 2 ,400 households.
The proposed development would add over 2 ,200 new homes and using the Office for National
Statistics 2 .4 persons per household, that could increase the population by another 5 ,000
people, which would double the size of the town.
The fundamental question is simple.
Can Moreton's infrastructure cope with becoming a town of more than 10 ,000 residents?
The evidence suggests it cannot. Firstly education provision remains
uncertain. New schools are identified within the plan but there are no firm
construction or opening dates. Housing could be built long before school places
become available. Furthermore locating schools on the outskirts of the town
creates additional problems. Parents are likely to drive children to school
increasing congestion and pee times. The proposed locations would also require
many children to cross the new multimodal link road raising both safety
concerns and traffic delays whereas in contrast the existing St. David school is
centrally located and accessible on foot for many residents. There's also concerns
about the proposed primary school site on the fire college land given the site's
history of PFAS contamination. Residents would need confidence that any school
location is entirely safe for future generations. Secondly traffic congestion
remains a major issue. Anyone living in Moreton knows that the A429 and A424 are
already operating at capacity adding over 2 ,000 homes will generate
significant additional traffic.
The proposed link road is presented as a solution,
but transport evidence suggests that it mainly
redistributes local traffic rather than addressing
the real issue, which is the through traffic
from north to south and south to north.
There's a well -established transport principle
known as Bryce's Paradox, which demonstrates
adding new road links does not reduce congestion
in the long term.
Initially, traffic may improve, but as more drivers
use the route, congestion often returns
to existing bottlenecks, and in this case,
traffic will ultimately still have to join
on a retrained local network.
Thirdly, I am very concerned about flooding.
Building unfilled along the Tottenham Road
will reduce natural drainage and increase service water
runoff onto the river even load.
The proposed link road may also accelerate the movement
of water towards the river system during heavy rainfall.
Given the increasing frequency of extreme weather events,
we should be exercising caution,
not adding further flood risk to more
than in downstream communities.
The plan also raises wider concerns
about sustainability and accessibility.
15 % of the residents currently have no access to the car.
At the same time, around 85 % of residents
are dependent on one.
There is little evidence that new residents
will walk more and drive less,
particularly when schools, services, and facilities
are located away from the town centre.
No significant town centre parking provision is proposed
and the transport hub largely replaces existing parking
rather than increasing capacity.
We must also consider our older residents.
Around a quarter of Morton's population is over the age of 65
yet there appears to be little additional infrastructure specifically
designed to support them. Key facilities are proposed on the edge of town
making access more difficult for those less able to walk or drive. There is
nothing in the plan that proposes additional buildings for doctors or
dentists. Finally we should learn from experience. Firstly thank you for
removing the proposed 25 house in Dalffing Way in Upper Bissington.
This leads on to the original Victory Fields development there where facilities
required by the planning inspector which included a nursery, a pub and a gym were never delivered
as originally designed. Land intended for community infrastructure was ultimately used
for housing. Whether or not formal obligations were breached, the lesson is clear. Promises
made during planning must be rigorously enforced. Residents need confidence that infrastructure
commitments made today will exist tomorrow. In conclusion, this local plan asked Mortems
to absorb growth on a scale that will fundamentally change the town. Yet there remains uncertainty
around schools, roads, flooding, transport, healthcare, community facilities and the delivery
of infrastructure. Growth should follow infrastructure, not the other way around. Until there is clear
evidence that the necessary schools, transport solutions, flood protections and community
facilities will be delivered before or alongside development, I can't support this proposal.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:22:50
Thank you Councillor Firling. We've got Councillor Tristan Wilkinson next.
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:22:56
Thank you, Chair. Like many people here, I've wrestled with this a lot. This is not an easy
decision. Unfortunately, the option to vote against building in the Cotswolds is not an
option unfortunately. We have two choices ahead of us. We either adopt the plan and
go to consultation, it's not agreeing to build, it's agreeing to go to consultation, it's
the next phase. During that phase, everyone has opportunity to present evidence that may
change the trajectory that we're on. The alternative is that it fails and unfortunately I've seen
what happens when you don't have a plan. Just recently in Lechelade, despite the inspector
agreeing with all of the evidence of the local community, agreeing that we were
allowing building on a floodplain, ecological damage and everything else
despite all of that, he ruled against us anyway because of the tilted balance. In
Fairford we've seen in previous years unplanned development which has resulted
in basically housing mistakes and absolutely nothing else. We've now got
several housing estates on the wrong side of an A road, no crossing to the
secondary school every day, children running the gauntlet, crossing the
road having to get school and back. And we also have one of the country's most
overwhelmed sewage works, I've been down there several times myself, it is
ghastly and we're about to connect several more thousand houses to that
network without any guarantee from Thames Water,
despite our efforts that they are going to make
the necessary investment.
The thing I want to reassure the communities I represent
is that the cumulative effect along the 417 is what
I'm particularly concerned about.
Everyone is quite rightly focusing on their own
communities and the impact of that.
I think we're missing slightly the picture of when
we add all of this up, what that does to a community, it fundamentally changes the nature
of where we are. I'm looking across to Councillor Fowles, we live in the same area. Basically
from Syrinsester to Lechlade we're going to see several thousand houses using a road that
unfortunately has claimed two lives in recent months due to the dangerous nature of that
road. It's been closed several times due to very bad accidents. That road is going to
have more and more traffic on it. There's been lots and lots of comments about the
impact of RIAA Fairford. Who knows, we can speculate what's going to happen to that
in the future. Who knows, I want to reassure the communities that that is
absolutely on my agenda. I'll be fighting to get the noise map so that we can make
sure that any development that does happen in and around the Fairford and
and Kentswood areas has due consideration to the impact that that base is going to have.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I am going to be supporting this and I support it with a
certain weight, but I think that this is a plan that gives us the best option to fight
for that future. The alternative, unfortunately, is that we're not in the fight and we need
to be in the fight.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:26:32
Thank you Councillor Wilkinson. Next we've got Councillor Mike McEwen.
Councillor Mike McKeown - 1:26:37
Thank you chair. I said at cabinet last week this is a very hard plan for me to
support and a week on that hasn't changed. The target is we've heard 18 ,000
homes over a thousand a year. A target given to us by government that doesn't
listen. More than double what came before and wrong for this district and we've
heard from many people here wrong for our communities. Around 80 % of the
Cotswold sits in the national landscape so almost all of that development growth
falls on communities outside it. In my own ward that means a thousand homes in
Kemble, tripling the size of the village. I've said publicly and I believe
I've said it again, I'll say it again here, that's just way too much.
As you've heard from Mike, we've asked the government three times that it's too much
and we've got the same answer.
No, we're not going to listen to you.
The question tonight is not whether we accept the target, it's whether we meet it with a
plan or without.
Both this down and the housing pressure doesn't go away.
It arrives anyway, site by site, through spectre for applications and appeals, with no five -year
land supply to hold the line and far less control over infrastructure, affordable
homes or indeed design quality that keeps a lot of a lot of our beautiful
Cotswolds intact. Also a word on climate change and the policy particularly
because this became very real and less abstract to me yesterday. A fire took
hold in the fields outside of my village of Sumver Cane's, you may have seen it in
the news. It threatened the village and came within only a few feet of the
working farmhouse and it burnt across one of the roads closing some of the
access way. It took nine fire engines to working across the day and into the
night to bring it under control. The police there with drones trying to spot
where secondary fires and there were fire engines around the area putting
those out late into the night and there were great work actually by local
farmers who are also tackling and trying to stop the spread of the fire. And fires
like this have been happening as we've seen up and down the country and indeed
across Europe. So that's really what climate change looks like right now, not
in 2050. And that's why standards in this plan matter. Homes that use very
little energy, low carbon heating, renewable generation and proper drainage
and green infrastructure, lower bills for residents and developments that does not lock
us into today's problems for the next 50 years. So my vote is not to endorse the government's
target, it's clearly wrong. It's a judgement about the alternative and I will vote with
this plan for Regulation 19 and I will work with the residents of Temple and elsewhere
and the Parish Council at every stage of what follows and do the best we can out of what
I think the office have done is designed the best possible plan with that very
wrong target that we've been given.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:29:53
Thank you Mike for your comments there. We're going to Councillor Darryl Cawth.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:30:04
Thank you chair. Firstly I want to thank our officers. An extraordinary amount of
work has gone into this plan very quickly indeed. My disagreement is
absolutely not with their hard work. My disagreement is what this plan would do
to Moreton in Marsh. Residents have said to me we understand Moreton has to take
some new homes but how on earth is the town meant to cope with this and I think
that's an entirely reasonable question we're hearing time and time again from
across the Cotswolds. We're talking about more than 2 ,000 additional homes around
a Cotswold market town and then in years ahead possibly thousands and
thousands more.
Morton already has a serious traffic problem.
The A49 already grinds through the middle of town slowly
from about 2 o 'clock in the afternoon on a Friday
right through to about 7 o 'clock.
And apparently the great answer to this traffic problem
is the so -called Spinal Road, except it isn't a bypass.
The plan provides no bypass for Morton at all.
It isn't even a proper relief road.
And residents in particular believe
it does pretty much nothing apart from solving, not solving the problems Morton already has.
In fact, one thing residents believe, this rather ineffectual spine road seems remarkably
effective at doing is opening up land for thousands of more houses. It's a road to the
houses, not a road for the town. And we talk about major infrastructure potentially
involving both the railway and the River Even Road, but 2 ,000 plus homes and thousands more
to come without a genuine solution to Morton's current traffic problem isn't
infrastructure -led planning, it's hoping for the best. And we heard earlier from
Councillor Viviani that there is no employment land allocated in Morton. We
were told put it in the consultation but what we're expecting the inspector to do
shuffle housing around like jigsaw pieces and magically discover some
employment land underneath. This is the North Cotswolds. People work in farming,
They work in hospitality and retail.
You cannot, and this is no joke, you cannot safely milk a cow
or serve a pint or run a shop from your spare bedroom.
If we're planning thousands of new homes,
surely we should be asking people and be planning
where people actually are going to be working.
So with genuine respect and thanks to our offices
for the enormous amount of work they have done here,
I cannot support this plan as I do not believe the residents
of Morton would wish me to do so.
I'd also like to ask, are individual councillors able
to have proposed housing allocations removed
from their own wards during the preparation for the local plan?
I ask this because I've seen the district council publicly state
they were able to remove a proposed allocation of 26 homes
in Upper Rissington from the draught local plan.
However, reading the council's documentation,
it describes the removal as a correction, a drafting error. These two things are
not the same. Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:33:08
Thank you, Councillor Court. We've got Laura Hall -Wilson now.
Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson - 1:33:14
Thank you. I've given a great deal of consideration to the weight of this decision, as I know all members will have done today on the local plan.
We as Councillors elected to this chamber are custodians of a world renowned and special part of Great Britain.
My own ward of Tepbury with Upton has been asked to make provision for a relatively small amount of houses as has the wider town.
But I still believe this plan will negatively affect the town with huge numbers planned for neighbouring Kemble
and many residents of Tepbury travelling north to Sirencester and east out to Swindon along the A417 and 419 where significant numbers of houses are planned.
So I don't believe it's right to look at one ward in isolation, but to look at the district
as a whole. Home to 92 ,000 residents, just the Cotswold district within the Cotswold
national landscape attracts 5 .9 million visitor trips a year, generating 380 million pounds
worth of visitor -related expenditure. That is down to the beauty of the area we are lucky
to call home. It's ancient towns and rural settings. It's our job to safeguard it for
future generations while facilitating sensitive development
for those who live, work and grow up here
and providing the services and infrastructure
that residents expect to be able to live comfortable lives.
The numbers imposed on us by the labour government
threaten that.
I do not believe they are sustainable.
I do not believe we have the infrastructure to support them
nor does this plan provide any reassurance
that roads, schools, hospitals, drainage, water services
and other critical infrastructure will follow.
The same mechanisms we have relied on for years
have let residents down,
and I don't see how that changes now.
Simon Sester has recently seen
completely unacceptable water outages on several occasions,
and in recent weeks we should not be sanctioning
any more houses until we have cast iron assurances
that services are going to keep up with housing numbers.
I understand the threat from speculative development,
but developers are always circling,
always looking to promote sites outside of local plans.
But the key point is being speculative to approve this plan locks in the land for development definitely
I also do not believe the current economic climate is is deliverable within expected timeframes
Which still leaves us vulnerable without a five -year housing land supply under the current government numbers?
Developers are already submitting viability assessments towards a section 106 agreements
Which leaves us with houses without the promised benefits or potentially the affordable homes as they become unaffordable to deliver
We are not here to do the bidding of the Labour government and a discredited urban northern MP who sits as our housing secretary.
We are here to represent the residents in our wards and deliver for the people of the Cotswolds.
Our position from the outset has been those 18 ,000 homes in 20 % of the geographical area is an impossible task,
yet we are here being asked to approve a plan with those numbers and then some as headroom.
We have an opportunity imminently in the form of local government reorganisation
to look at those numbers across a wider area with a better mix of landscapes and
more urban centres with better employment prospects and transport
links. Development is important, we cannot stand still, but we must recognise what
defines our landscapes and do what we can to preserve that. I appreciate the
scale of the task in creating this local plan and officers and members have
worked tirelessly to get us this far, but the timescales are too tight for allow
to the level of scrutiny needed.
The documents we are being asked to approve
have caused rise to significant questions
from Councillors and residents
that are yet to receive satisfactory responses
and leave residents assured of meaningful consultation
and evidence -based site allocations.
For these reasons, I cannot support this plan.
Instead, all elected representatives at all levels
should be battling these numbers
to make them more appropriate and not accommodating them.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:37:05
Thank you Laura, thank you. I'm going to go to Councillor Foulton.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:37:12
Thank you, Jim. Unlike my colleagues, I haven't got detailed set of notes, so I hope this
will come out the right way because I've been listening to everything my colleagues have
said. I've also listened to all the speakers, both at ONS and here tonight. And yes, it's
lovely to live near Tristan. We live in a great part of the Cotswolds and you're
right we've got huge pressure on our settlements there, particularly
Letchlade and Fairford. But I've also lived in Fairford, I've also lived in
Down Antony and I've also lived in Driffield and I've seen firsthand what
it's like to live in those communities and to work in the North Cotswolds to
drive up the Fosse Way to be hampered by traffic lights, roadworks, and goodness knows what.
We do not have an infrastructure that exists at the moment to satisfy the needs of the
current residents of Morton or Fairford or indeed Syrinsester. And when it comes to these
smaller settlements like Down Ampey, how we can stand here today and actually try and
justify building 1 ,600 houses there is beyond me. This is a small community with a limited
amount of resource within it. It has infrastructure that's already stretched beyond breaking point,
particularly Thames water. The same is true of Driffield. How we can suggest there's a
buffer between Driffield and this new settlement is truly beyond me. I have to applaud not
the officers on this occasion, but you, Mike, and Julia. I think you've done a really first -class
job at taking a very difficult task and trying to deliver it. And the words you used to justify
it in your summing up were fantastic. But the reality is we can't have an infrastructure
first plan because where's the funding going to come from? I listened to David Cunningham
and hopefully he's going to speak at some point about how he costed out some of this
infrastructure, bearing in mind the amount of money we're going to get from SIL. And
it's just not deliverable. It's great to see in a plan that we could have nine schools.
But you actually look at what's going on in Fairford.
You look at the lessons of history, whether it was with a
local plan or ad hoc development.
Look at Tethbury, look at Fairford, look at Morton, and
what we have there in terms of infrastructure is woeful.
And I cannot genuinely see that that's going to change.
I would like just to correct one thing.
Yes, it was Mike who wrote to government, but actually we all
supported Mike.
The independent group, the green group, which sadly we no longer
have and indeed our group totally supported. So it was a collective response to government.
And I'm really disappointed that we've moved from being very, very opposed to this to a
point where we're delivering more houses than the government actually wants. And I would
urge colleagues across the Chamber, such as Paul and Tristan, to vote with your conscience
because you spoke very eloquently about what we have looking at before us. And to vote
with some of us who are going to vote against this. Thank you very much.
Thank you, David. Thank you for respecting the limit, not treating it as a target. If
I can encourage people to do that.
I'm not sure I heard that.
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 1:40:36
I thank you, chair, colleagues. This is not an easy speech for me to make. I have
thought long and hard about my position over the last few months.
I know, as others have said, it is not easy for them.
I would like to put on record my particular thanks to the leader for how he has handled
this and for encouraging open debate and challenge.
We really do find ourselves between a rock and a hard place.
I would like to begin by saying I fully recognise the importance of having a local plan.
I do understand the risks of failing to get a plan in place.
Without one, we leave ourselves vulnerable to speculative development,
planning by appeal and decisions being taken out of the hands of local communities and this council.
I do not underestimate for a moment, and I know that colleagues and residents in Tepray, Morton and Fairford know
exactly what unplanned development means.
However,
recognising the risks of having no plan does not mean that we need to accept a
plan which I do not believe is the right plan for the Cotswold District and this
isn't just about me being parochial and although clearly the
allocations in Down Ampere and Driffield are of particular concern to me as
their representative and impressed in where I live but I also believe that
this is not the right plan for Fairford, for Morton or for Meckleton. The reality
is that the housing target imposed upon Cotswold District Council is not one of our own making.
We all know that. It's been set by national government. We've challenged it.
The fundamental issue with this arbitrary target is that it fails to address the very
issue the government wants to tackle, housing affordability in the Cotswolds.
As we all know, housing targets do not deliver affordable homes. Councils, building council
houses deliver affordable homes. The market delivers profits to its shareholders. On top
of this, we have the constraint of the national landscape and floodplains, which effectively
means that the rest of the district is being asked to shoulder the overwhelming burden
of meeting that housing requirement. The consequences of that are plain to see in this plan.
My own ward down Anthony faces a substantial increase in housing numbers. We are being
asked to support the creation of a wholly new settlement in Driffield. These proposals
will fundamentally change the character of our rural communities forever. I want to be
clear, there is much in the plan which is commendable. Its environmental ambitions and
green credentials are genuinely impressive. We should recognise the hard work that has
gone into achieving that. But I think for all the ambition, what the plan does fail
to do is deliver a visionary approach to place making. I would like to have seen us look
at greater urban density and the Sire ancestor in particular. If we are serious about reducing
pressure on our villages and protecting our countryside, we must ask whether every reasonable
opportunity has been taken to accommodate growth in the district's largest and most
sustainable town where services, employment and public transport already exist. However,
one of my greatest concerns is going to be infrastructure. We have all mentioned it.
Time and time again, residents are told that infrastructure will accompany development.
We are promises of roads, crossings, health facilities, community buildings, public transport,
shops and schools. Yet the reality is that viability assessments allow developers to
to maintain profit margins while essential infrastructure is negotiated away, delayed
or reduced. When infrastructure fails to materialise, we are left with housing estates rather than
communities. Estates without busses, without doctors, estates without shops, without community
facilities, without safe crossings. Estates that add pressure to already overstretched
roads and services. That is not sustainable development, that is not place making, that
is not what our residents have asked us to deliver. Whether it is Morton and Marsh where
congestion is a daily reality, or Fairford where a 3 .4 metre pinch point creates difficulties
for residents, businesses and visitors alike, these communities do not simply need mitigation
measures, they need strategic solutions, they need bypasses. I don't have time now to go
on about sewage infrastructure, you know it's a really big issue that I have campaigned
on long and hard and I really would not rely on Thames Water to deliver on any of its promises.
This is a really, really difficult decision because we all know what the consequences
of not having a plan R. We know what speculative development looks like.
But unfortunately, because of all the reasons I have mentioned,
I won't be able to join my colleagues tonight in supporting this plan.
It is very, very difficult for me to say, but that is where I am at. Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:45:47
Thank you very much, Lisa. As you can see, it is really hard for a lot of us.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:45:58
very very very very difficult and we're going to go to Councillor Inge. Thank you
chair. Firstly I want to say that I find myself very uncomfortable with the
position we're in. That the government has put us in this area with 80 % of
Cotswold National Landscape which under the MPPF 190 states major
development in national landscape should be refused except in exceptional
circumstances where there is proven public interest. This means that after
flood risk areas we have available to consider for development less than 20 %
of our district. As a co -signatory of the representations made to the government
for reconsideration of our allocated housing target I have been disappointed
at their response and their refusal to visit the Cotswolds to understand the
constraints and the planning policies that we are facing. I find it
unacceptable that the view is we all have to do our part and get on with it.
It's not fair. There is no doubt in my mind that with or without a plan there
will be communities and residents whose areas and lives will be changed forever
here in the Cotswolds. But without a local plan we face the real risk of
speculative development which we are already seeing due to the changes in
calculation and changes in housing calculation and the position that we no
longer have a five -year housing supply. I'm a strong supporter of infrastructure
first, giving residents and communities the services and facilities before
developments are completed and residents move in and it is vital that any local
plan has a robust position on this including Grampian positions. Can we
really ensure that our residents and communities are not disadvantaged by
development? My lived experience in Tethbury has been that due to piecemeal
developments along one particular road there has not been the relevant
infrastructure required pavements and street lighting to me pretty basic stuff
since the new GP surgery permission was granted I've been working with
colleagues both elected and officers at Gloucestershire County Council and
Cotswold District Council to secure strategic still to like to allow the
mission infrastructure to be installed progress is slow and we await a decision
However, the housing is already there.
People are living in tribes or clothes,
jasmine gardens, and the surgery will be nearing completion.
Wouldn't you expect residents to be able to walk safely
along a lit road where the speed limit is 40 miles an hour?
One example of infrastructure not coming with unplanned
or small parcel planning applications.
As Tethbury sits in the Cotswold National Landscape,
compared to other parts of the district,
Tethbury has got away with it lightly,
only two non -strategic sites in the plan. However one of those is already causing
concern as the access is along a residential road which already gives
access to the Senior School where large busses and coaches are already an issue.
It is not perfect. Since I've rejoined the Planning Committee it seems that due
to a lack of the housing supply the policies that we have used in the past
to protect our very special district will no longer work and we are declared
out of date. My plea to all residents is if this regulation 19 consultation is
approved that they attend any local exhibitions of meetings open to them and
they ensure that they make sure that their feelings and concerns are known by
responding to the consultation. Whilst I feel that this situation makes me feel
uncomfortable and is unpalatable so is subjecting the district to
unspeculative development and no infrastructure plan. We are stuck between
a rock and a hard place and I'm really wrestling with this decision. I'd like to
thank all the speakers both this evening and previously I've attended O &S and
I've seen the cabinet meeting last week who are helping me to consider this very
difficult question. If we can find a way to shape our future and provide services
and infrastructure including ensuring that our residents have social rented
affordable homes I would like us to find that way. I don't want things done to us
by developers and I want to be part of that decision -making process. I feel that
a local plan with robust policies particularly around socially rented
affordable homes for ordinary residents of the Cotswolds and proper
infrastructure could be there whilst protecting the Cotswold national
landscape and I would like that to be I feel that a local plan with
those policies could help us to do that. I was born and I have lived in the
Cotswolds for my whole life and I want to do the best I can
within the constraints that we have for all of us
and for the future of the district.
But I don't want to see communities changed
just because they're not within a line
on the Cotswold national landscape.
Finally, my grateful thanks go to the offices,
members and residents who have participated so far
and maybe participating should this local plan
be approved this evening.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:51:02
Thank you.
Thank you, Nikki. Thanks very much. We have got Councillor Coleman next.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:51:18
Thank you, Chair. I think this has been one of the best debates I have ever attended.
I have attended one or two over the decades. As I listened, I began to realise that there
There are not very many of us left from the days before 2015 or 2019.
There are some very distinguished colleagues on the other side.
Perhaps it will be OK if I emphasise a particular point here which perhaps is not given enough
emphasis yet.
The alternative to having an up -to -date local plan has already been tried in the past.
The three towns that suffered from development without control, development without a plan,
have been mentioned several times.
Tetbury, Fairford and Moreton in Marsh.
Moreton in Marsh got up to 1 ,000 properties while our plan was not up to date.
It was in the Conservative days and it was deliberate because they were keeping the council
tax down and didn't want to spend it.
That was a legitimate choice for them to make, provided they accept responsibility for the
results.
The results of that out -of -date plan led to so many overturned decisions by this council,
so many successful appeals, that the leader of the council authorised a totally no -chance
judicial review.
Judicial review is one of the most expensive things you can do.
Everybody knew it was going to fail, and it failed.
That's actually for one of the sites in Tethbury.
Tepary got a load of unplanned housing, Fairford got a load of unplanned housing and in Dean
Morton got a massive unplanned housing and far less infrastructure and far fewer facilities
and far fewer benefits for the community than if the plan had been up to date then.
Well that's in the past, it's done and it's forgotten but if you don't learn the lessons
of the past I think you've got some questions to answer.
We tried that method, it was the worst possible.
Now we have the opportunity to have an up -to -date local plan which, OK, has appallingly high
targets but most of us live in communities which have grown.
What I find living in a community which grew quite fast, 30 or 40 years ago, probably quadrupled
in size roughly, is that Stratton is a lovely place to live.
I don't know if Tony will remind us of what he said at the Cabinet the other day which
was most memorable.
He was talking about Northridge, he didn't name the town, about the fears as it expanded
and what a wonderful community it's become.
In the end, what will save our communities is the resourcefulness, the generosity and
the creativity of human beings living together in a reasonably safe, reasonably prosperous
part of the country.
And fortunately, more people are able to work from home so the jobs issue may not be as
bad as some of us fear.
and indeed the birth rate has fallen so far that we've already had to put back
the new school in Cirencester in the Stairings. So I hope you understand I'm not making a
partisan point by emerging people to do the scientific thing if you like and say
well what would happen if we did this alternative? Well we know because we
tried it and it was even worse than this new local plan. I don't intend any
criticism because I'm sure if I'd lived in the wards the most affected this time
I'd made a much poorer version of the speeches made by colleagues from those
effective was. Thank you very much chair.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:54:53
Thank you. Thank you Councillor Colm. Could you turn your microphone off and
Councillor... yeah that's great thanks very much. Always good to have that kind of
historical perspective which you so often bring to the table and that really
is for corporate memories good. Councillor Bloomfield we have now.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:55:07
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I also want to thank the officers and members who work
on this draught plan in response to the current government's totally unreasonable, unfair
and disproportionate housing targets for rural areas such as the Cotswolds, where only 20 %
of the land is not protected by the Cotswolds national landscape. And as a result, most
of this huge housing target has been crammed into 10 strategic sites, with Fairford, Driffield,
Down Ampey, Kemble, Morton and Marsh and Mickleton being among the most severely affected. Mickleton
is in my ward along with my co -councillor, Tom Stowe, and the pain I've been hearing
from there, the emails, the calls, the meetings we've been having, the people are really distressed.
They are not just a bit unhappy, they are absolutely desperate about what is happening
or the proposals which might happen in Middleton going forward.
I know that that is also reflected in some of the other strategic sites too, where we
have heard from representatives and councillors just how unhappy and worried the people are
there.
The government imposed housing numbers are preposterous and I have deep concerns as to
whether the outlined infrastructure in the local plan to support the large increase in
population in these areas will follow, will be built in a timely way or even be built
at all. As has already been mentioned, developers have a canny way of wriggling out of their
section 106 commitments stating reduced profitability and also reducing the amount of social and
affordable housing for the same reason. So will it be the government who will have to
find the money for the new schools, GP surgeries, roads and other essential infrastructure?
And if the government nationalises Thames Water,
they will also have to fund the sewage treatment
plant upgrades.
Where is the money going to come from?
Higher charges or taxation or borrowing?
GCC has no spare money, and I don't expect the new unitary
will be any better off when it's formed.
It states on 4 .54 in the local plan that critical
infrastructure, priority one, should be in place before
building of the new homes commences.
That's the fundamental infrastructure for delivery
of this development strategy is most likely
to be needed before a development can commence,
such as upgrades to sewage treatment works,
new school provision, and highways,
improvement associated with strategic sites.
How can a CDC guarantee that these will be delivered,
and where will the money be coming from to pay for it?
As mentioned by the Councillor from Moreton,
For these newly expanded communities to be sustainable,
there is undoubtedly a need for more employment opportunities.
And this is particularly important
for the younger people looking for their first jobs
who do not have a car and also to reduce the amount
of distance travelled in cars
for many residents to reach employment.
If we want to be green to the core, we don't want people,
I mean the roads at the moment
around here as everybody knows are absolutely clogged.
I mean, you know, we can't, we just can't cope with that.
much. When I look at the local plan, I see aspirations to provide more employment, but
no concrete ways of achieving this, as it cannot assure that the land set aside for
employment is used in this way. Just, and I do listen to the thing people make comments
about working from home, yes, there are people working from home, but the whole, not everybody
is going to be able to do it. There's a whole lot of jobs which can't be done in that way.
And even those people who are going to be working
in the new schools or the GP surgeries
or all the other local employment places will be
needing to use a car.
This plan, by its nature, enormous increases the
population in the district.
How can a proportionate increase in employment
prospects be realistically delivered?
I cannot support this plan as it stands for the
Consports as a whole and in particular for Mickelton who really just can't cope
They've already had a lot of extra housing there. No infrastructure, and I don't think they have any hope and expectation
There'll be infrastructure in the future. Thank you very much
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:59:35
Thank You come to Bloomfield accounts to Cunningham now
Work you up. Sorry about that. Yeah, you can come back to sleep if you want and we
Councillor David Cunningham - 1:59:44
Thank you Mr Chair, I actually wasn't going to speak today, I think everybody got sick
of me talking at ONS the other week.
No we didn't.
Yeah yeah no no, say your words!
I can't say a blank!
Councillor David Cunningham - 2:00:07
I wasn't going to speak because I think I've said all the things and other people have
also mentioned all of these things already about infrastructure but I do think it's worth
reiterating this. And spoiler alert, I'm going to vote no, but it's not because of
the number of houses, because they were foisted on us, we had no choice in that.
It's not really about where they're going, because again, we don't really have
a lot of choice where we can put them. It's about the fact that unfortunately
when the plan has been delivered, and I've voted every single level for this
to go through, the plan that's come in doesn't address what residents want, and
They want communities.
They don't want dormitory estates, as we've already been told.
They want proper towns.
Proper towns need infrastructure.
And the reality is that we can talk till we're blue in the face about how S106 agreements
and grand peon conditions will make sure that all of this gets delivered.
But the reality is, developers have ways to get around this.
They look at viability studies and they say, look Mr Inspector, these people want us to
do these things and in reality they're going to eat through our profits and that's not
allowed.
And it worries me because in our own report here, there's a quintic report that we had
commissioned, and 50%, half of the strategic sites we're putting forward, they've already
recognised are non -viable.
Morton doesn't even raise 50 % per unit in what it will get from developers to cover the infrastructure cost.
It just doesn't work.
Now we talk about, well, if we don't have a local plan it will be the wild west and they'll build where they like.
Well they won't build where they like because 16 % of it is what's available to them.
We might not like how they do it but they're not going to be building all over the national landscape because they won't be allowed.
They won't, no, no, they won't. The inspectors won't put up with that, they just won't.
So in reality, if we can't guarantee the infrastructure, which we can't, because we know that there are ways for developers to get around it,
if we can't promise our residents that we'll give them proper communities and not these dormitory towns, what does this plan deliver?
I mean, I think what it delivers in the end is just a big list of targets for them to take a pot shot at.
And the reality is, until we can get proper guarantees about infrastructure, I think we're
better off waiting, it is a long time to wait, dealing with each of the applications as they
come in, fighting them where we can, and then letting the unitary authority take over this,
run with this, and say, fine, we will have a holistic approach to this, we will look
at it, and we will have control over roads, we will have control over education, and we
can properly deliver on this infrastructure. I mean you can shake your
head all you like, Andrea, but the reality is that all we're doing is putting up a plan
that they can knock down. Developers will knock it down and there's no point in
saying they won't try because as soon as their profits are in danger they will
fight and they will fight better than we will fight, I'm sad to say. And whether
we've got a local plan or not, Section 73 amendments to Grampian conditions, if
they're backed up with the right infrastructure assessment report, will
win. So I'm sorry, I like a lot of things in this report, I really do. There's a lot
of stuff in there which is very aspirational. But until we can get a
proper infrastructure delivery plan that has realistic numbers in it, 422 million
pounds for all of the infrastructure across the whole of the district, it's
just fanciful, it's fantasy. The most we can get out, if you look at the average
that we've had for the last 25 years is 35 ,000 pounds per house per developer as
they put money into it. That's 684 million. That's not even going to come
close to what the final bill for our infrastructure is going to be. So I'm
Councillor Mark Harris - 2:04:36
sorry I'm going to have to vote no. Thank you Councillor Cunningham. We've got
Thank you.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:04:43
Councillor Jenkinson next.
Thank you, chair.
I had two speeches prepared depending on circumstances.
And I know which one I'm giving, you'll see.
I am the Councillor for the largest number of residents in Moreton.
My ward was the most hit in the years when we did not have an area plan.
plan. When I stood for this council in 23, my mantra was we have not had an area plan,
it has not been looked after. That means that we have got the housing and developments that
you know about that have not met proper obligations and have not had the infrastructure. You have
talking about it. All the complaints that I've been hearing have regularly related
to these issues. We are probably about to approve a plan, publishing a plan, that is
far larger than we would wish. I find this situation as painful, as difficult
as everyone else who's spoken so far.
As a consequence of approving this process,
and if the plan becomes the plan,
and anyway, a massive amount of building activity will follow.
Will we manage it well?
We've heard just now about the problems of developers.
My purpose now is to ask the leader and cabinet to prepare for this.
In other words, I'm not talking rhetoric, I'm talking about the real issue.
Members will know how widespread failure to comply has been in the past.
Every ward probably has examples.
I don't want to take up time talking about the problems.
You know of sad or even appalling storeys, a year of carting sewage.
I have four estates with serious problems.
Shortcuts, dodgy, loose decision notices, poor laws and likely cartels.
Not only do we have a tilted balance towards building more houses, we have a tilted balance
making developments less sound.
That is why I'm asking that we do all we can here to stop this national crisis affecting
us here.
If you live in a house which is suffering, it is a very present crisis.
It harms communities, it reduces confidence, it creates frustration.
Many of you have referred to that.
That is why I'm simply asking the Leader and Cabinet to commit to bringing a motion to Council
to tackle this systematically.
This will need resources and systems.
I'm requesting that this be brought at an opportune time
in the area plan process
as soon as reasonably possible and correct.
This should reassure residents
and be genuine commitments to effective outcomes.
Naturally, it should be so far as possible a foundation to endure into the unitary beyond.
You know that with the best will in the world, we have a lack of resources and systems historically.
You know that we've not always written robust decision notices.
You know that there is unadopted roads and other issues still hanging about.
You know we need to do something about this.
And that's why I am asking the Leader, Councillor Ebony and the Cabinet
to take on board this issue and to bring forward a motion with a plan to deal with this better in the future.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 2:09:49
Thank you, Councillor Jenkinson, and thank you for your impeccable timing on that.
Right, our next and I think our final speaker is Councillor Pellegran,
and then unless anybody's got anything that's going to absolutely turn it all round on its head,
then I think we'll go to the vote.
Oh, Councillor Len Wilkins is going to turn it all round on his head.
Oh, there I was all pleased I was going to be the last one to speak.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 2:10:09
Oh, one of the last words, but I won't have it now.
I get that.
Thank you very much.
I wasn't intending to speak today either.
And we've heard not everybody, nobody, nobody wants
to have this amount of development.
We all agree that.
My ward is, well, I've got three of them now, Four Acres Ward,
Chesterton Ward, and Cirencester Park Ward.
All of them, but the Stedding's Development.
And in the last local plan,
the Stedding's Development was the big controversial allocation.
It's huge.
It's 2 ,340 homes, I believe.
Okay. And at the time, everybody thought that the world was going
to end, that Cirencester was going to grind to a halt
and that it was all a disaster.
Cirencester Town Council paid me to write a very lengthy series
of objections to that proposal.
It went forward anyway.
And now, and I literally live, there's a cemetery between me and the development, and I walk
my dog there most days.
And since then, the world has not ended.
It has not been a catastrophe.
We have had a lot of infrastructure provided.
We've had new roundabouts.
We've had a primary school.
And yes, there is additional pressure on my wards.
There is more traffic.
It is evident.
But it has not been the disaster that we all planned.
It has not been a disaster.
Okay? So I just want to say to you, and you all know
that I'm a town planner by profession
and I've been doing this for 40 years.
Those of you who vote against this plan are really,
if you're doing it for your local communities
because you think you're going to help your communities
by voting against this plan,
What you're doing is you're sacrificing everybody else just to make a point for your communities.
And your communities are going to get this housing anyway, only it's not going to be
as good.
So I think that voting against this plan is performative.
I don't think you're actually going to change a thing if you vote against the plan.
And leadership requires you, requires us all, to make difficult decisions in the benefit
of the greater good. And that's what we're trying to do here. And finally, I just want
to say that the local plan inspector's job is to go through all of the thousands of pages
of evidence and to listen to all of the things that you've been saying about why it's not
good in Wharton or Fairford or Cirencester or Driffill. There are lots of imperfections
here and that's the local plans inspector's job to analyse all of that
and only to accept sites that are indeed sustainable according to national
planning policy which is set by government. Thank you for listening.
Councillor Mark Harris - 2:13:16
Councillor Len Wilkins - 2:13:23
Thank you, Andrea. I'm going to be lost but by no means least, Councillor Wilk.
Absolutely. Save the best till last.
Like Councillor Coleman, I remember those bad days when we didn't have a local plan.
What I'm now doing is mentally working out what would happen today.
It was a different time. Developers today are different financial animals.
They haven't got the money. You can't sell houses at the moment.
The estate agent in Wales has sold two houses.
No, come on, stop it.
Just choose that.
We showed respect to you, please.
It was a difficult time, but I'm not convinced that refusing this plan isn't a good idea.
It's certainly going to make people at the back happy.
It's going to give them more chance to put their point.
If we do get post -magic development, we have a chance to fight it.
At the moment, you are giving the developers a free pass.
Sorry, I can't agree to this.
My residents deserve happiness and I think your residents deserve it too.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 2:14:44
Thank you very much, Councillor Wilkins.
Right, we are going to get the vote now.
But first, but I'm so sorry, we got to sum up here, sum up there and then we'll go to the, yeah, sorry about that.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:15:02
Thank you, Chair, thank you members for all your contributions to this debate.
It's definitely been one with a lot of passion and people have put a lot of their heart and
soul into what they've said.
I recognise that this decision is difficult for many members.
I have a ward with three strategic sites in it.
So I understand some of the issues that are being raised on behalf of in other wards.
The housing target is too big.
We all agreed on that.
We wrote three times to the government.
They said, get on with it.
So we, of course, all, I think, in this chamber, would prefer a
different plan with fewer houses in it.
But that is not a plan that an inspector would find sound.
And if an inspector doesn't find a planned sound, it's not
going anywhere.
It's going in the bin.
So we've got to be realistic here and think we can either
put forward this plan to Regulation 19,
or we can give up.
We can give up all the work that we've done
and wait for another, a new council to come along,
take another five years, and we can let our communities
deal with the speculative development
that comes in the meantime.
All those meetings of the Planning Committee
where the Planning Committee either votes for it
because of the tilted balance, refuses it,
and we lose on appeal.
I'd really like to just go through a few of the comments
that have been made. I can't, apologies, refer to everybody's speech. To Paul, absolutely
the government needs to, has got it wrong, but the government is being inflexible. To
Councillor Thirring and Councillor Caw, I understand your concerns about Morton. I understand
the concerns that have been expressed about Mickelton by Councillor Bloomfield and Councillor
But if we vote to put this plan to regulation 19 consultation, everybody will be able to put their concerns in.
It won't be a five minute speech in the council.
It'll be everyone that lives in Mickleton, everyone that lives in Moreton, everyone around him that will be able to have their say.
So what we're deciding today is, do we want to give them that say, or are we just going to give up?
Because that's the choice.
To Councillor Rind, very wise words as ever, Nicky, and absolutely we are between a rock
and a hard place.
This is a really difficult decision.
But we didn't get elected here to make easy decisions.
We got elected by the people in the Cotswold district to lead.
And we need to lead by taking this decision to put this plan through to the Regulation
19th consultation, it would be in my view, a total abdication of leadership to vote down
this plan now. A year ago, we said the target hasn't changed from a year ago. A year ago,
we said we need to get a plan. Now we have a plan. And we don't like it. Some of us we
don't none of us I think is overjoyed at the fact we've got 18 ,000 houses, but it's a plan
that's been worked on by our officers working together with a cabinet that can be found
sound that can deliver for our district.
All the great stuff that Juliet said in her speech, there's groves of great stuff.
But if we don't pass this plan to Regulation 19, none of that's going to happen.
The developers, as we all know, will do the bare minimum.
And there's been a lot of stuff said about infrastructure, but I think probably one of
the most powerful things is what Andrea just said.
You look at the steadings development.
I know because it adjusts my ward.
There's a school hall in my ward that's been paid for by the Stedding's Development.
There's a roundabout just down there that's been paid for by the Stedding's Development.
There's a left turn lane for those of you who go up the Fosse Way that's been paid
for by the Stedding's Development.
That is what planned development delivers.
Unplanned development delivers what we've seen in Fairford and Tepary and Moreton.
It delivers roads like Nicky said with no street lights.
It delivers estates with no schools.
That's what unplanned development is.
we don't want that for our district.
I think ultimately this is a binary decision.
Should we ask our residents and communities for their views and
concerns about this plan?
Or should we abandon the whole thing that we've worked on for the last four months?
And leave it to the developers and the new council to decide where housing goes and
what infrastructure we get.
I believe the best choice is to vote to put this plan to consultation,
despite reservations we may have about the volume of new homes and their impact
on some of our communities. I ask you to weigh that choice before you vote and
join me in concluding that whilst this plan isn't perfect, it's much better than
no plan. Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 2:20:08
Thank you very much Mike. Well we're going to go to the vote now. I'd like to
I'd like to thank you all.
I really would like to thank you for your civility in this debate.
I think it speaks very highly of this Council and in other places it's not quite as civil.
So thanks to everybody, particularly as it's such a divisive and invidious subject that
we've been, that's been imposed on us by the government.
Let's not forget that.
So choose your poison, folks.
Yes, go for it.
I think I've got to read out the yeah I'm sorry about that. It's just a 20. So the
recommendation is that council it agrees the Cotswold local plan 26 to 2043
regulation 19 document is published for six weeks consultation for 24 from 24th
26 to 5th of October 2026.
Second, agrees that thereafter the Cotswold Plan 26 to 2043
Regulation 19 document is submitted to government
for independent examination.
Three, provides delegated authority
for the director of communities in place
in consultation with portfolio holder
for housing and planning to make any minor corrections
prior to consultation, including typographical
and formatting purposes.
and following the Regulation 19 consultation to prepare an additional
modification schedule for submission if required. Notes the technical sport
evidence in preparation for publication alongside the COTS or local plan for
consultation. And I didn't get to vote. Oh no I did. There's a couple of things you
missed. One is the material changes to the draught local plan that were agreed by cabinet last Thursday and
there's also another schedule of changes that were circulated today I
Okay, so including those additional changes. Okay, so we've gone to anyway you've all voted anyway, so well done
I've voted yeah, yeah
So
We've always still open. We'll give it a second
Are there 30 of us here or has somebody gone? Yes. Okay one person hasn't voted by the looks of it
Who hasn't voted
Yeah. Patrick, you go to your mic.
Ah, there we go.
Okay, so the scores on the doors are 17 for putting the local plan to consultation,
11 against putting the plan to consultation, and two abstentions.
Thank you very much.
I hope that when somebody's looking at this video in 2043, they go.
You did all right by us.
I also hope that they say we got across net zero and it's not quite as hot as it is today.

7 Next meeting

Our next meeting, colleagues, is the 23rd of September 2026 at 6pm.
Just remains for me to say have a lovely rest of your summer.
Webcast Finished - 2:23:23
Enjoy it, stay cool, stay lubricated, and wear a hat.

There are currently no votes to display