The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Cotswold Council met on Monday 03 August 2026 to discuss the draft Local Plan 2026-2043. The committee heard extensive public questions and member questions regarding the plan's proposals, particularly concerning housing allocations, infrastructure delivery, and the sustainability of proposed developments. The committee ultimately made recommendations to Cabinet regarding the publication of the Local Plan for consultation and its subsequent submission for independent examination.

The Local Plan and Housing Targets

The meeting focused heavily on the proposed Cotswold Local Plan 2026-2043, which aims to guide development across the district for the next 17 years. Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, explained that significant changes to national planning policy had doubled the district's housing requirement, from under 500 homes per year to over 1,000. This increase, coupled with the Council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, has created a tilted balance in favour of speculative development. The Council has written to the government three times requesting an adjustment to the housing target due to the Cotswolds' unique landscape constraints, but has been informed that the target must be met.

The draft Local Plan proposes allocating land for 17,918 dwellings over the plan period, with an estimated total housing supply of 18,911, providing a headroom of 993 dwellings. This includes significant allocations at strategic sites such as Down Ampney (1,658 homes) and Driffield (1,090 homes).

Concerns over Sustainability and Infrastructure

Numerous public questions and member concerns revolved around the sustainability of proposed developments and the capacity of existing infrastructure to cope with increased housing numbers.

• RAF Fairford and Down Ampney: Residents from Down Ampney Parish Council raised serious concerns about the proposed 1,658-home allocation at Down Ampney, citing proximity to RAF Fairford and potential issues with aircraft noise, public health, aviation safety, and Ministry of Defence safeguarding. They questioned whether the development constituted sustainable development and requested an independent assessment of aviation risks. Officers responded that the Ministry of Defence had not raised objections to this specific allocation and that the scale of development would enable the delivery of necessary infrastructure.
• Driffield: Questions were raised about the classification of Driffield as a principal settlement, the robustness of its assessment, the proportionality of its proposed scale of development (1,090 homes), and the adequacy of transport evidence. Concerns were also voiced about the decision-making process, with a request to refer the plan back to the Council before submission. Officers clarified that the settlement's classification reflected planned future facilities and that the Regulation 19 plan represented the Council's intended submission.
• Mickleton: Parish councillors and residents expressed concerns about the significant increase in housing proposed for Mickleton (from 590 to 1,387 homes), questioning the deliverability of promised infrastructure, the impact on the village's character, and the lack of local employment prospects. They also highlighted transport issues and the potential for legal challenges due to the absence of a Regulation 18 consultation on the revised proposal. Officers stated there was no statutory requirement for a Regulation 18 consultation on specific sites and that delaying the plan would expose the district to speculative development.
• Moreton-in-Marsh: Concerns were raised about the scale of development (over 2,200 homes), the lack of identified employment land, the proposed spine road's cost and funding, and its effectiveness in reducing existing congestion. Questions were also asked about the status of the Local Plan following local government reorganisation. Officers confirmed that the reference to dedicated employment land was an error and that the development would include mixed-use elements. The spine road's alignment was noted as indicative, with detailed design to follow.
• Wastewater and Water Supply: Multiple speakers, including Councillor Lisa Spivey and Councillor Claire Bloomer, highlighted significant issues with Thames Water's infrastructure, citing frequent sewage spills and water supply disruptions. They expressed scepticism about Thames Water's ability to deliver necessary upgrades and questioned the viability of new developments without guaranteed infrastructure improvements. Officers acknowledged the concerns but noted the limitations of the planning system in directly enforcing utility company upgrades, though they would continue to highlight these issues to the government. Grampian conditions were discussed as a potential mechanism to ensure infrastructure is in place before occupation.
• Affordable Housing: The affordability of housing in the Cotswolds was a recurring theme, with concerns that the plan's focus on meeting government housing numbers did not adequately address the need for genuinely affordable homes. Councillor Lisa Spivey questioned whether the plan truly delivered affordable homes, while Councillor Claire Bloomer asked about policies to support smaller settlements in providing affordable housing. Officers stated that the plan aimed to meet the identified affordable housing need and would increase the proportion of smaller homes.
• Tourism Impacts: Councillor Jon Wareing raised concerns about the impact of tourism on settlements like Bourton-on-the-Water and Bibury, arguing that the plan recognised tourism as a strategic issue but lacked equivalent policy approaches for these heavily visited areas compared to the Cotswold Lakes. He questioned why infrastructure pressures from tourism were not addressed with the same strategic planning approach as those from housing growth. Officers acknowledged the issue but noted the limitations of the planning system in addressing infrastructure pressures arising from existing visitor demand without new development.

Recommendations to Cabinet

Following extensive discussion, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee made several recommendations to Cabinet:

1. Tourism: Strengthen policies where tourism causes exceptional infrastructure pressure on settlements, citing Bourton-on-the-Water and Bibury as examples.
2. Infrastructure Delivery: Highlight the importance of providing infrastructure for strategic sites in a timely manner, often before development begins, and using Grampian conditions where necessary. This includes transport, water supply, drainage, sewage treatment, sustainable water management, healthcare, education, employment, and environmental improvements.
3. Transport Infrastructure: Re-examine transport infrastructure in specific locations, notably Moreton-in-Marsh and Fairford, with particular attention to pinch points and cumulative traffic impacts.
4. Accessibility: Ensure the plan is accessible to all, providing information to those unable to access web-based documents or attend public meetings.
5. Communication: Clearly communicate to the public why the plan is necessary and the risks associated with not having one.
6. Multi-agency Gateway Agreements: Examine the potential use of multi-agency gateway agreements for developers to sign up to before development commences, to provide greater certainty on infrastructure provision.
7. Thames Water: Request that the failure of Thames Water to provide resilient water supplies and sewage treatment capacity be highlighted to the government.
8. Housing Targets: Express concern that national housing targets are numbers-based and do not reflect local housing needs, including affordability and types of homes required.
9. Team Recognition: Thank Andrew Maxted and the Planning Policy Team for their efforts in preparing the plan.

The committee also noted that the Regulation 19 consultation would be crucial for residents to have their say, with responses going to independent planning inspectors who would determine how they were considered during the examination process. The committee acknowledged that while the plan aimed to address many issues, it was not perfect and would be subject to further scrutiny.