Agenda item
Public Questions
To deal with questions from the public within the open forum question and answer session of thirty minutes in total. Questions from each member of the public should be no longer than two minutes each and relate to issues under the Cabinet’s remit. At any one meeting no person may submit more than two questions and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.
The Leader will ask whether any members of the public present at the meeting wish to ask a question and will decide on the order of questioners.
The response may take the form of:
a) a direct oral answer;
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:
Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, opened the public questions session by acknowledging the anxiety and concern caused by the publication of the proposed Local Plan on 24 July 2026. He recognised that the proposals had come as a surprise to some communities and anticipated that these concerns would be reflected in the public questions.
Those present were reminded that the Council was required to respond to Government-imposed housing targets, which had increased from fewer than 500 homes per year to 1,054 homes per year. As a consequence, the Council's existing Local Plan housing policies were considered out of date, creating a presumption in favour of development until a new Local Plan was adopted.
Councillor Evemy explained that he had written to three Government Ministers requesting that the housing target be reconsidered, with support from members across political groups and evidence submitted through the Regulation 18 consultation. However, the Government had confirmed that the target would remain unchanged.
Cabinet was also reminded that Full Council had unanimously agreed twelve months earlier to prepare an updated Local Plan, noting that an adopted Local Plan was the principal means by which the Council could resist speculative planning applications. Recent planning appeals where decisions to refuse speculative developments had been overturned were referred to, emphasising the importance of progressing the Local Plan before opening the floor to public questions.
1. Councillor Adam Crawford – Down Ampney Parish Council
Councillor Adam Crawford referred to a question he had previously raised at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding military aircraft noise associated with RAF Fairford and the potential impact of USAF (United States Air Force) operations on proposed development sites. He asked whether the Council's discussions with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had specifically considered the noise impact of B-1B Lancer aircraft operating from RAF Fairford, given the proximity of the proposed development to the take-off flight path.
He further asked, in light of the fact that independent assessments of aircraft noise, health impacts and aviation safety had not yet been completed or published, what evidence the Cabinet had relied upon in concluding that the proposed Down Ampney allocation represented sustainable development.
The Leader of the Council deferred to the Interim Head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure who confirmed that the Ministry of Defence had been consulted and would be expected to advise the Council on any operational concerns relating to proposed development. While the MOD had raised issues regarding some sites, it had not identified concerns relating to this proposal. Officers confirmed that engagement with the MOD and other statutory consultees would continue throughout the plan-making process.
The Leader acknowledged the concerns raised and confirmed that representations submitted during the Regulation 19 consultation would be fully considered. Should further evidence from the MOD identify a fundamental issue, this would be addressed through the Local Plan process.
2. Councillor Richard Harrison – Fairford Town Council
Councillor Harrison stated that Fairford Town Council had identified significant issues within the published assessments and proposals, particularly regarding bottlenecks on the A417. He asked whether the Cabinet acknowledged these concerns and whether amendments could be made before submission of the Local Plan, including consideration of a short delay to allow detailed evidence to be provided.
The Leader advised that the timetable for preparing the Local Plan was constrained by Government deadlines and that amendments could not be made before publication. He encouraged Fairford Town Council to submit detailed representations during the Regulation 19 consultation, which officers would consider.
The Interim Head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure advised that the evidence supporting the Local Plan was considered proportionate and appropriate for the stage reached. Engagement with statutory consultees, including the Highway Authority, would continue throughout the process, and modifications could be proposed where necessary. The Planning Inspector would ultimately determine whether any changes to the Plan were required.
3. John Forshaw – Driffield Parish Council
Speaking on behalf of Councillor Norris, Mr Forshaw referred to correspondence requesting withdrawal of the proposed new settlement south of Driffield from the Regulation 19 Local Plan. He argued that the proposal represented a substantial urban extension rather than a genuine new settlement, had not been consulted upon during Regulation 18, and that residents and the Driffield and Harnhill Parish Council had therefore been denied an opportunity to comment at an earlier stage. He asked whether the Cabinet would withdraw the allocation pending further consultation and reassessment.
The Leader confirmed that Councillor Norris would receive a written response to his correspondence, noting that it raised legal matters requiring advice before a detailed reply could be issued.
He advised that Cabinet did not intend to withdraw the Driffield allocation. He explained that, while the site had entered the process following Regulation 18, time constraints prevented undertaking a further Regulation 18 consultation before the Government's submission deadline. He confirmed that the proposal would instead be tested through the Regulation 19 consultation, during which residents would be able to submit representations. Public engagement sessions would also be arranged for Driffield residents.
Mr Forshaw posed a supplementary question, expressing concern that residents were effectively required to prove why the allocation should be removed once it had entered the Regulation 19 Plan.
The Leader explained that the Regulation 19 consultation formed part of the statutory planning process. Representations received would be considered by the Planning Inspector during examination of the Local Plan. He acknowledged local opposition but confirmed that the Council was required to follow the prescribed planning process.
4. Richard Gunner
Mr Gunner asked why climate change and environmental protection were not more prominent throughout the Local Plan, despite the Council having declared a climate emergency. He also asked whether the Council recognised that the proposed Very Light Rail project sought only protection of a future transport corridor rather than Council funding.
The Leader advised that climate considerations were embedded throughout the draft Local Plan, including policies promoting zero-carbon housing, sustainable development, public transport and active travel. He encouraged respondents to suggest further improvements during consultation if they considered additional measures necessary.
Regarding Very Light Rail, Councillor Evemy confirmed that an amendment would be proposed to Policy CP14 to safeguard a corridor for a potential Very Light Rail connection (or successor technology) between Kemble and Cirencester.
5. Katharine Kilworth
Ms Kilworth asked whether the transport evidence supporting the proposed Driffield allocation assessed only development planned to 2043, representing approximately half of the ultimate proposed allocation, and whether the Cabinet considered this sufficient to satisfy the tests of soundness.
She further asked what assessment had been made of the risk that unresolved transport evidence could result in the Local Plan being found unsound, similar to the experience of Stroud District Council.
The Leader invited the Interim Head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure to respond. He explained that development beyond 2043 would be considered through future Local Plans and that further opportunities would exist to assess longer-term growth. It was also advised that, should preparation of a new Local Plan become necessary, the process would take a minimum of approximately four years, with a Gloucestershire-wide plan expected around 2033.
6. Tony Berry – Cotswold Community Railway
Mr Berry advised that, following earlier confirmation that the proposed amendment safeguarding the Very Light Rail corridor would be included within the Local Plan, he no longer wished to ask a substantive question. He thanked the Cabinet for its support and expressed sympathy regarding the housing targets imposed by Government.
The Leader thanked Mr Berry for his comments.
7. Henry Kilworth
Mr Kilworth asked whether the Council held written confirmation from National Highways confirming satisfaction with the cumulative highway assessment relating to the A417 and A419, including the full Driffield housing allocation, and whether this information could be made available before Council considered the Local Plan.
He also asked how the proposed new settlement south of Driffield identified in the draft Local Plan as a principal settlement could be justified within the settlement hierarchy given that at the recent Overview and Scrutiny Committee officers had indicated that it might be more appropriately classified as a non-principal settlement and that its designation could be reviewed in a future plan.
The Interim Head of Planning Policy and Infrastructure advised that the proposed settlement would become a principal settlement as services and facilities were delivered over time. He clarified that the proposed allocation was separate from the existing settlement of Driffield, which remained classified as open countryside.
He further confirmed that National Highways had been engaged throughout preparation of the transport evidence and that discussions would continue as the Local Plan progressed.
8. Neil White – Driffield Parish Council
Mr White spoke about the likely impact of the proposed development upon the existing community of Driffield, stating that it would fundamentally change the character of the village and expressed concern for residents who had lived there for many years.
Councillor Evemy acknowledged the strength of feeling expressed by Mr White and recognised the anxiety experienced by communities affected by the proposals. He confirmed that members understood these concerns and would take all relevant matters into account when considering the Local Plan. He noted that councillors had a responsibility to weigh all evidence carefully before reaching a decision.
The Leader thanked the members of the public who had spoken for their questions and comments.