Agenda item
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.
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 to submit the Regulation 19 Local Plan by the Government's deadline at the end of the 2026 calendar year. The Plan would then be subject to independent examination, during which representations would be considered by the Planning Inspector(s), before returning to Council for adoption. If adoption had not taken place before local government reorganisation, the decision would fall to the successor authority.
Questions - Mickleton
Councillor Kevin Fletcher from Mickleton Parish Council and Andy Crump from Mickleton Against Inappropriate Development (MAID)
raised concerns regarding the proposed strategic allocation at Mickleton. They questioned whether the necessary infrastructure would be delivered in advance of development. They noted the impact of the scale of growth on the sustainability and character of the village, and asked whether alternative highway arrangements had been considered to reduce traffic through the village? Concerns were expressed about the consultation process and questions were raised on whether the absence of a Regulation 18 consultation on the revised proposal could affect the soundness of the Local Plan?
Answer
There was no statutory requirement to undertake a Regulation 18 consultation on specific site allocations before progressing to Regulation 19. Delaying the Local Plan would prevent submission within the Government's timetable and leave the district exposed to speculative development. A Local Plan provided the strongest mechanism for securing infrastructure alongside development and the sustainability of the Mickleton allocation had been assessed in the context of its location, opportunities for new services and infrastructure, and proximity to larger settlements and employment.
Questions – Moreton-in-Marsh
Cllr Eileen Viviani from Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council and William Hathaway asked whether the scale of development at Moreton-in-Marsh was appropriate in the absence of a wider strategic spatial strategy for the future unitary authority? There were concerns regarding the proposed transport strategy, including the alignment and purpose of the proposed link road, and whether sufficient evidence demonstrated that the preferred route represented the safest and most deliverable option. They enquired what status the adopted Local Plan would have following local government reorganisation and whether it would remain binding on the successor unitary authority?
Answer
The proposed alignment of the link road shown in the draft Local Plan was indicative. Design work, including the precise alignment, would be undertaken at a later stage through the planning process. The illustrative masterplan could be refined as further evidence became available.
The Leader said that, if adopted before local government reorganisation, the Local Plan would be inherited by the successor unitary authority and used to determine planning applications within the former Cotswold District. If adoption had not taken place before reorganisation, responsibility for adopting the Plan would pass to the successor authority.
Question - Driffield
Lisa Collins from Driffield questioned the capacity of wastewater infrastructure, the potential impact on groundwater protection and flood risk, and the resilience of the local road network. She asked whether appropriate assessments had been undertaken and requested that a Grampian condition be included to prevent occupation of new dwellings until sufficient wastewater treatment capacity had been confirmed?
Answer
Additional infrastructure improvements would be required alongside development could proceed. No strategic sites would be expected within the first five years of the Plan and that the policy wording was intended to ensure that development could not proceed unless supported by the necessary infrastructure. Officers agreed to review the policy wording to ensure this intention was clear.
Questions – Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Doug Crook from Ampney Crucis asked whether the Infrastructure Delivery Plan had been published and questioned whether the proposed stepped housing trajectory was likely to be accepted through the Local Plan examination process? He also requested that the supporting documentation be published in smaller, more accessible sections to improve usability.
Answer
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan formed part of the supporting evidence for the Local Plan and would be available alongside the consultation documents, with documents published separately by topic to improve accessibility. The proposed stepped housing trajectory was consistent with national planning policy and had been adopted by other authorities. It was considered an appropriate approach given the District's constraints and was intended to provide the best prospect of securing a sound Local Plan through examination.
Question - Driffield
Catherine Kilworth from Driffield questioned the evidence supporting the proposed Driffield allocation. She highlighted perceived inconsistencies between the site selection and transport assessments on the site's sustainability and accessibility. Concerns were also raised about the evidence relating to site promotion, land ownership and deliverability, with a request that the Council clarify the position and confirm the arrangements in place to support delivery of the site.
Answer
The transport assessment considered both the existing situation and the impact of the proposed mitigation measures, and that the conclusions should be read in that context. The information regarding the promotion and delivery of the Driffield site was not considered inconsistent, as strategic sites were not expected to come forward until later in the Plan period, allowing time for detailed planning, site promotion and infrastructure planning prior to development.