Agenda and minutes

Extraordinary, Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Wednesday, 5th November, 2025 2.00 pm

Venue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services

Media

Items
No.	Item
OS.241	Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. The quorum for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is 3 members. Additional documents: Webcast for OS.241 Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Jon Wareing, David Cunningham, Joe Harris and Nick Bridges.
OS.242	Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Webcast for OS.242 Minutes: Councillor Ray Brassington substituted for Councillor Nick Bridges, Councillor Ian Watson substituted for Councillor Joe Harris and Councillor David Fowles substituted for Councillor David Cunningham.
OS.243	Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Webcast for OS.243 Minutes: No declarations of interest were made.
OS.244	Public Questions A maximum of 15 minutes is allocated for an “open forum” of public questions at committee meetings. No person may ask more than two questions (including supplementary questions) and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation. The maximum length of oral questions or supplementary questions by the public will be one minute. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the Committee but questions in this section cannot relate to applications for determination at the meeting. The response may take the form of: a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); b) Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Webcast for OS.244 Minutes: Mr David Hindle welcomed adherence to the Regulation 18 timeline and supported increasing residential density. They expressed concern about including post-2043 strategic site figures, noting that future allocations would be determined by a successor authority, and highlighted that the local plan covered 15–20 years, not 30. They also observed that, due to landscape and sustainability constraints, the existing Cotswold District Council (CDC) area would be likely to receive less than its proportionate share of residential growth under the forthcoming Spatial Development Strategy. The officer replied to the question that while the Council may wish to have a local plan in place in advance, the new authority would take primacy in developing the spatial development strategy, with up to five years after vesting day to do so. They noted that preparing the plan now provided control and a legacy for the transition, ensuring that development would be planned, sustainable, and supported by the necessary infrastructure, rather than allowing piecemeal speculative development.
OS.245	Member Questions A maximum period of fifteen minutes is allowed for Member questions. Questions must be directed to the Chair and must relate to the remit of the committee. Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received, except that the Chair may group together similar questions. The deadline for submitting questions is 5.00pm on the working day before the day of the meeting unless the Chair agrees that the question relates to an urgent matter, in which case the deadline is 9.30am on the day of the meeting. A member may submit no more than two questions. At the meeting the member may ask a supplementary question arising directly from the original question or the reply. The maximum length of a supplementary question is one minute. The response to a question or supplementary question may take the form of: a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); b) Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Webcast for OS.245 Minutes: There were no Member Questions asked.
OS.246	Cotswold District Council Local Plan Review Preferred Options November 2025 PDF 522 KB Purpose To seek approval to include an addition to the consultation document for the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation on Preferred Options for Development, and to amend the consultation dates. Recommendation That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 6 September 2025. Additional documents: Annex A -Cotswold District Council Local Plan Review Regulation 18 Consultation Preferred Options (November 2025) , item OS.246 PDF 3 MB Webcast for OS.246 Minutes: The purpose of the report was to seek approval to include an addition to the consultation document for the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation on Preferred Options for Development, and to amend the consultation dates. The report was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council and Helen Martin, Director of Communities and Place. They raised the following points: Indicative housing numbers beyond 2043 were proposed as planning for larger strategic sites over a longer timeframe provided greater certainty for the delivery of necessary infrastructure. The National Planning Policy Framework recommended that larger sites should have a 30-year vision for development. Including indicative numbers at this stage promoted transparency and allowed for early engagement and comment from members and communities. The figures were purely indicative, not formal site allocations, and did not alter the preferred development scenario. These numbers were based on current evidence and would be refined following further assessment of transport, landscape, and other constraints. In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: Concerns were raised about holding the consultation just before Christmas and whether the timetable could be altered or better explained to residents. The officer advised that, although the consultation had been extended from six to seven weeks, the overall timetable could not change because the plan must be submitted by the end of 2026 and adopted by the end of 2027. Keeping to this schedule was essential to maintain an up-to-date plan, avoid speculative development, and prevent potential government intervention. It was explained that the term “indicative” could be introduced earlier in the document to clarify that the current site figures were preliminary and subject to change. The figures were based on sites considered potentially deliverable, but further evidence, due diligence, and a new call for sites may affect availability. Once all local sites had been assessed, the Council would engage neighbouring authorities under the duty to cooperate, to see if they could assist in delivering homes. The final housing figure in the local plan would reflect what could be delivered locally and by neighbouring authorities. The inspector may approve a different figure supported by evidence. The Council was working within government housing targets whilst challenging them and emphasised that communications included exhibitions, information to households, meetings with Town and Parish clerks, and updates via social media to help residents understand how the targets had been set and the Council’s position. The site described as “near Driffield” referred to a new settlement rather than an extension of the existing village. Whilst the aim was to make new homes as environmentally sustainable as possible, delivering nearly 20,000 houses could not be entirely “green,”. The principle of “green to the core” applied not only to the developments but also to the policies within the plan. Whilst the density level could support sustainable development, the District’s character meant that the highest density may not always be appropriate. However, well-located higher-density development could be preferable to dispersed low-density housing. Developers would need to demonstrate how required infrastructure ... view the full minutes text for item OS.246

Related Pages