Agenda and minutes
PDF 526 KBVenue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. The quorum for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is 3 members. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Tony Slater. |
|
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson substituted for Councillor Tony Slater. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Naomi Bloomer declared that they were a governor of one of the schools within the Corinium Education Trust. |
|
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair outlined the arrangements for public participation, including the time limits for questions and the order in which speakers would be invited to come forward.
The Chair confirmed that the Committee's role was to review and make recommendations, rather than make decisions on the Local Plan proposals. She also advised attendees of the forthcoming public consultation events and future opportunities to address Cabinet and Council on the Local Plan.
Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, provided context for the draft Local Plan explaining that changes to National Planning Policy had significantly increased the District's housing requirement, resulting in the Council no longer being able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. This had increased the risk of speculative development and reinforced the need to progress a new Local Plan. It was noted that the Government had confirmed that the Council was expected to plan for its housing target unless it could demonstrate otherwise through the examination process. The draft Local Plan had been developed following the Regulation 18 consultation and a subsequent call for sites. |
|
|
Public Questions A maximum of 30 minutes is allocated for an “open forum” of public questions at this extraordinary committee meeting. 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 two minutes. 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: Minutes: Question – Sustainable development Cllr Richard Harrison from Fairford Town Council asked whether the draft Local Plan represented sustainable development, given the increased housing requirement and the absence of a wider strategic spatial strategy? Reference was made to requests to delay the Local Plan process to allow further work on housing distribution and infrastructure planning. Answer The Local Plan had been required to be consistent with National Planning Policy and meet the identified housing need unless there was robust evidence to justify an alternative approach. The proposed strategy directed development towards larger, more sustainable settlements, where infrastructure could be planned and delivered alongside growth. The phased housing trajectory would allow time for infrastructure provision and delaying submission of the Local Plan beyond the deadline would mean that the process would need to restart, leaving the District exposed to speculative development.
Questions – RAF Fairford and Down Ampney Cllr David Eglise and Cllr Adam Crawford from Down Ampney Parish Council raised concerns regarding the proposed strategic allocation at Down Ampney. They questioned whether the site represented sustainable development given its proximity to RAF Fairford. Concerns were expressed about aircraft noise, public health, aviation safety, the absence of a military airfield noise assessment, Ministry of Defence safeguarding, infrastructure capacity and the impact on the character of the village. They asked whether progression of the site should be paused pending the completion of an airfield noise map? Answer The proposed scale of development would enable the delivery of supporting infrastructure, including a primary school and transport improvements, and was considered capable of delivering a more sustainable pattern of development. The Ministry of Defence had been consulted on the draft proposals and had not raised objections to the Down Ampney allocation.
Questions - Driffield Charlie Tuke-Hastings and Andrew West raised concerns regarding the proposed strategic allocation at Driffield. They questioned the evidence supporting the site's classification as a principal settlement, the robustness of the assessment underpinning the allocation, the proportionality of the proposed scale of development, and the adequacy of the transport evidence. Concerns were also expressed about the proposed decision-making process following the consultation, with a request that the final Local Plan be referred back to Council before submission for examination. Answer It was advised that the proposed classification as a principal settlement reflected the level of facilities expected to be provided as part of the development, which would in time make it equivalent to a principal settlement. The Regulation 19 Local Plan represented the version the Council intended to submit for examination and that, under the statutory process, it could either proceed to submission or be withdrawn, rather than amended following consultation. The Plan contained limited flexibility in housing supply due to local constraints, removing the allocation would reduce that flexibility and increase the risk to the Plan. The transport evidence had been prepared in consultation with National Highways and that engagement with statutory consultees would continue throughout the Local Plan process.
The Leader added that the Council intended ... view the full minutes text for item OS.364 |
|
|
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: Minutes: Question – Employment land in Moreton-in-Marsh Cllr Daryl Corps, District Councillor for Moreton-in-Marsh West and County Councillor for Moreton-in-Marsh, Stow-on-the-Wold and the Rissingtons, noted that the proposed location for employment land was not shown on the indicative masterplan.
He asked how the deliverability of the proposal could be assessed without this information and sought clarification on where the employment land would be located and when this would be confirmed?
Answer References to a dedicated employment allocation were included in error and would be corrected before the consultation was published. Although no specific employment land was proposed, the development would include a range of mixed-use elements and supporting infrastructure that would generate employment opportunities.
Question – Spine road in Moreton-in-Marsh Cllr Corps sought clarification on the proposed multi-modal spine road at Moreton-in-Marsh, including its estimated cost, the proposed funding arrangements and whether sufficient developer contributions would be available to deliver the required infrastructure. He enquired whether there was evidence that the proposed spine road would reduce existing traffic congestion, rather than justserving the proposed development?
Answer Indicative cost estimates were set out in the evidence base and the proposal was considered deliverable, supported by viability evidence, developer contributions and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Detailed work would continue as the Local Plan progressed.
The evidence indicated the proposed spine road would provide some improvement to existing traffic conditions. However, a more significant reduction in congestion would require a more extensive link road, which could not be delivered through the current level of development. The safeguarded route would allow for future extension should additional development come forward. |
|
|
Purpose 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 submission to the Secretary of State in December 2026 for independent examination. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee will consider the report and make comments ahead of Cabinet on 6 August 2026. Cabinet will make recommendations to Council on 12 August 2026.
Accountable Member Councillor Juliet Layton – Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning.
Report Author Andrew Maxted - Head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure. Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Juliet Layton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Cabinet Member introduced the report, outlining the purpose of the Regulation 19 Local Plan, the proposed consultation and subsequent submission for independent examination. It was noted that the Plan would provide the policy framework for development to 2043 and reflected previous consultation and updated evidence. The importance of meeting the Government's submission timetable and the implications of national planning reforms and increased housing requirements were also highlighted.
Recommendations That Cabinet submits the Cotswold Local Plan 2026 - 2043 (Regulation 19) to Council with the following recommendation: That Council: i. Agrees the Cotswold Local Plan 2026 – 2043 (Regulation 19) document is published for six weeks consultation from 24 August 2026 to 5 October 2026. ii. Agrees that thereafter, the Cotswold Local Plan 2026 – 2043 (Regulation 19) document is submitted to Government for independent examination. iii. Provides delegated authority for the Director of Communities and Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning, to make any minor corrections prior to consultation, including for typographical and formatting purposes AND following the Regulation 19 consultation to prepare an ‘Additional Modifications’ Schedule for submission if required. iv. Notes the technical supporting evidence in preparation for publication alongside the Cotswold Local Plan 2026 – 2043 for consultation.
Members asked a series of detailed questions relating to the content of the Plan, including the impact on individual settlements across the Cotswold District, provision of infrastructure, housing supply and Regulation 19 consultation process. These reflected concerns raised by local residents.
In addition, members identified a number of issues that were associated with the Plan but not related to its content – · Concern regarding the housing target set by the Government · Failure of Thames Water to provide resilient water supplies and sewage treatment capacity across the Cotswold District. · Repeated difficulties encountered with housing management companies on new developments.
Responses were provided by the Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, the Head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure and Assistant Director–Planning Services.
Summary Local Plan benefits · Whilst progressing the Local Plan involved difficult choices, the absence of an up-to-date Plan would leave the District more vulnerable to speculative development and would reduce the Council's ability to secure infrastructure, affordable housing and other planning objectives. There was no evidence to suggest a future unitary authority would be required to plan for a lower level of housing, and an adopted Local Plan would provide the strongest framework for managing development and supporting infrastructure delivery. · The Local Plan's design policies and proposed design code would seek to ensure high-quality, attractive developments that also took account of designing out opportunities for antisocial behaviour through the development management process. · Infrastructure providers, including health providers, preferred a plan-led approach, enabling them to plan service provision and infrastructure in advance and secure developer contributions to support future growth. · The settlement hierarchy reflected National Planning Policy by directing development towards the larger, more sustainable ... view the full minutes text for item OS.366 |