Skip to main content

Agenda item

Local Plan

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.

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 settlements while limiting development in smaller settlements. This approach was consistent with that adopted by other local planning authorities and was considered appropriate for the Local Plan.

·       The proposed level of housing supply included a modest level of headroom above the identified housing requirement to provide flexibility. This reduced the risk of the Local Plan being found unsound should any allocated sites prove undeliverable and assisted in maintaining a five-year housing land supply.

 

Regulation 19 consultation

·       The Regulation 19 consultation would seek to maximise accessibility by using accessible venues, improving the presentation of consultation material and working with Town and Parish councils to reach those less able to engage online. Additional support, including translation, could be provided.

·       Responses received from residents during the Regulation 19 consultation would be submitted to the Planning Inspector, who would determine how the representations would be considered during the independent examination, including the issues to be explored and the conduct of the examination process.

·       The Regulation 19 Local Plan represented the version the Council intended to submit for examination. Following publication, only minor additional modifications could be made by the Council, with any substantive changes to the Plan being a matter for the Planning Inspector through the examination process and subsequent consultation. More substantive changes affecting the soundness of the Local Plan would be matters for the Planning Inspector to consider through the examination process.

 

Infrastructure

·       Whilst the masterplan was indicative, the infrastructure requirements set out was not.

·       The Local Plan could include a requirement for strategic sites to be supported by a multi-agency gateway agreement to provide greater certainty that infrastructure would be provided alongside development.

·       Whilst delivery of some infrastructure relied on external organisations, development would be expected to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure could be provided in order to comply with Local Plan policies.

 

Water supply, drainage and sewage capacity

·       Concerns were raised regarding the capacity of wastewater infrastructure and the reliance on upgrades by water companies to support the proposed level of development. The potential use of Grampian conditions to ensure that development could not proceed or be occupied until the necessary wastewater infrastructure was in place was discussed.

·       The Local Plan included policies to promote sustainable water management measures, including water efficiency and surface water management, which could help reduce pressure on existing drainage infrastructure.

·       Sustainable drainage and the management of surface water would be considered through the design and planning application process. Specialist consultees, including drainage and highways experts, would help ensure that new development incorporated appropriate drainage infrastructure and minimised pressure on existing wastewater systems.

 

Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

·        Strategic sites would be expected to secure infrastructure primarily through Section 106 agreements, supported by viability evidence, with the CIL charging schedule reviewed following adoption of the Local Plan. Legally binding triggers would specify the infrastructure to be delivered at defined stages of the development.

·       Planning obligations could only be used to mitigate the impacts of new development and could not be used to address existing infrastructure deficiencies.

 

Impact of tourism – notably Bourton-on-the-Water and Bibury

·       The Local Plan recognised tourism as a strategic issue and included policies to address visitor impacts. Whilst the Plan sought to secure infrastructure alongside new development, there were more limited opportunities through the planning system to address infrastructure pressures arising from existing visitor demand in areas without proposed development.

 

Affordable housing

·       The provision of affordable housing, including in the north of the District, was important to enable people to remain within their local communities and retain access to employment, family support and local services. The proposed affordable housing policies, including the requirement for 40% affordable housing on qualifying sites, were intended to meet the identified need across the District. The Plan included smaller non-strategic allocations which could increase the proportion of smaller homes. This supported the delivery of affordable housing through neighbourhood plans and rural exception sites where a local need and suitable site could be demonstrated.

 

Religious facilities

·       No specific need for additional religious facilities had been identified through the evidence gathered to date. Should a need be identified during the planning process, it could be considered as part of the detailed masterplan and provision of community facilities for the strategic sites.

 

Housing management companies

·       Concerns were raised regarding the transparency and operation of housing management companies. These matters needed to be addressed through the planning application process rather than the Local Plan, although further guidance to developers on the establishment and governance of management companies could be considered.

 

Mickleton

·       The proposed scale of development at Mickleton was considered capable of supporting a more sustainable pattern of development by improving access to employment, services and education. The location benefited from access to nearby employment centres and that planned education provision elsewhere in the District could reduce travel distances for future residents.

 

Moreton-in-Marsh

·       The cumulative impacts of traffic had been assessed as part of the evidence base. It was advised that the proposed link road at Moreton-in-Marsh was expected to provide a net positive effect on traffic conditions, although wider transport issues and the delivery of bypasses were matters beyond the scope of the Local Plan.

 

Recommendations and comments to Cabinet

 

Recommendation 1 - Tourism

Strengthen policies where tourism causes exceptional infrastructure pressure on settlements.

Comment

Bourton-on-the-Water and Bibury were cited as examples, but there are likely to be other settlements in the District facing similar pressures.

 

Recommendation 2 - Infrastructure

Highlight the importance of providing the infrastructure indicated in the plan for the strategic sites in a timely way, often before development begins and, where necessary, using Grampian conditions.

Comment

Infrastructure includes transport, water supply, drainage, sewage treatment, sustainable water management, healthcare, education, employment and environmental improvements, and is a fundamental aspect of building new sustainable communities.

 

Recommendation 3 – Transport infrastructure

Look again at the transport infrastructure in particular locations in the District, notably Moreton-in-Marsh and Fairford.

 

Recommendation 4 – Accessibility

Ensure that the plan is accessible to all, including the provision of information to those who cannot access web-based documents and those who would struggle to attend public meetings and exhibitions.

 

Recommendation 5 – Communication

Ensure that communication to the public is clear on why the Plan is necessary and the risks associated with not having a Plan.

 

Recommendation 6 – Multi-agency gateway agreements

In light of the risks associated with the provision of infrastructure, examine the potential use of multi-agency gateway agreements which developers could be required to sign up to before development commences.

 

Recommendation 7 – Thames Water

Thames Water had failed to provide resilient water supplies and sewage treatment capacity across the Cotswold District and the Committee request that this continue to be highlighted to Government.

 

Comment

Concern that the national targets for new homes set by the Government were simply numbers based and did not reflect the real housing needs of local communities, including the types of homes required and their affordability.

 

Comment

The committee thanked Andrew Maxted and the Planning Policy Team for their efforts over recent months in preparing the Plan and its supporting documents.

 

Proposed by Cllr Lisa Spivey

Seconded by Cllr Jon Wareing

 

The meeting ended at 7.56pm

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages