MAID Public Meeting about Regulation 19 - 30th Huly 2026

The section below contains all the email addresses for CDC Councillors.  Depending on what you want to say it may be relevant to send your comments to all Councillors, or if you would rather address a specific committee the main committees and representatives are:

 Main Committees and Members

• Cabinet (Executive decision-making body):
  • Mike Evemy (Chair), Juliet Layton (Vice-Chair), Patrick Coleman, Tony Dale, Mike McKeown, Andrea Pellegram, Tristan Wilkinson.
• Planning and Licensing Committee (Decides planning applications and licensing):
  • Dilys Neill (Chair), Ian Watson (Vice-Chair), Ray Brassington, Nick Bridges, Patrick Coleman, Daryl Corps, Paul Evans, David Fowles, Nikki Ind, Julia Judd, Michael Vann.
• Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Reviews council policies and decisions):
  • Gina Blomefield (Chair), Angus Jenkinson (Vice-Chair), Claire Bloomer, David Cunningham, Tony Slater, Lisa Spivey, Clare Turner, Michael Vann, Jon Wareing, Ian Watson.
• Audit and Governance Committee (Handles financial audits and governance):
  • Helene Mansilla (Chair), Craig Thurling (Vice-Chair), Nick Bridges, Paul Hodgkinson, Jeremy Theyer, Jon Wareing, Len Wilkins, Nick Craxton, Christopher Bass (Co-opted).

mark.harris@cotswold.gov.uk; clare.turner@cotswold.gov.uk; len.wilkins@cotswold.gov.uk; jon.wareing@cotswold.gov.uk; Gina Blomefield <gina.blomefield@cotswold.gov.uk>; Tom Stowe <tom.stowe@cotswold.gov.uk>; andrea.pellagram@cotswold.gov.uk; david.fowles@cotswold.gov.uk; julia.judd@cotswold.gov.uk; michael.vann@cotswold.gov.uk; david.cunningham@cotswold.gov.uk; ray.brassington@cotswold.gov.uk; tony.slater@cotswold.gov.uk; mike.mckeown@cotswold.gov.uk; Helene.mansilla@cotswold.gov.uk; tristan.wilkinson@cotswold.gov.uk; angus.jenkinson@cotswold.gov.uk; daryl.corps@cotswold.gov.uk; claire.bloomer@cotswold.gov.uk; tony.dale@cotswold.gov.uk; jeremy.theyer@cotswold.gov.uk; mike.evemy@cotswold.gov.uk; juliet.layton@cotswold.gov.uk;   

naomi.bloomer@cotswold.gov.uk; dilys.neill@cotswold.gov.uk; patrick.coleman@cotswold.gov.uk; nikki.ind@cotswold.gov.uk; ian.watson@cotswold.gov.uk; laura.hall-wilson@cotswold.gov.uk; lisa.spivey@cotswold.gov.uk; paul.evans@cotswold.gov.uk; craig.thurling@cotswold.gov.uk; nick.bridges@cotswold.gov.uk

You may want to take inspiration from the MAID messages lower down this page, or perhaps one of more these issues:

1) Who in Mickleton wants a Village of 5000, the size of Chipping Campden without the facilities   (More than doubling of village population in coming years with little additional infrastructure provision).

2) The village size will double over the next few years following on a 38% increase over the last ten years.

3) Existing welcoming rural gateway to the Cotswolds to be replaced with an urbanising sprawl of housing estates engulfing the village and wreaking havoc upon its natural and historical environment.

4) 80 hectares of land will be lost, greatly impacting on the rural setting of the village and impacting views to and from the Cotswold National Landscape.

5) Mickleton marks poorly against 15 other Cotswold settlements in terms of services and facilities, a figure the CDC has artificially increased by including in its ‘score’ facilities that are yet to be built.

6) Being swamped by nearly 1,400 additional homes is completely disproportionate and unnecessary given that there is no proven need for over 500 affordable homes to be built in this locality. Our own survey showed that the village’s need was for 70 ‘AFFORDABLE’ homes.

7) Huge increase in traffic in and through the village in a system which is already creaking at the seams, aggravated by the lack of a public car park.

8) CDC continues to ignore the large building project happening just 2 to 3 miles down the road at Meon Vale in Warwickshire, which will have an enormous impact on the village.

9) The additional 1,400 homes will put huge pressure on health and secondary education provision.

10) A&E hospitals are at least 20 miles distant, and congested roads will make it even harder for emergency vehicles to service the village.

11) Car dependency for reaching employment and doing the ‘big shop’ due to very poor public transport availability.

12) All this building will damage the Council’s aim of reducing carbon emissions.

13) CDC believe that they can make Mickleton a town if they say it often enough. IT IS A VILLAGE

Dear Councillor

We would like to express our anger at the New Housing Plan (Regulation 19) which will be coming to Full Council on 12th August for approval.

In this Mickleton is to be ‘landed’ with 1387 houses instead of the 590 odd which Regulation 590 had proposed and which MAID, the Mickleton Parish Council and many of our residents had strongly opposed. Now you present us with this amazing figure and justify it by saying that you had to protect the National Landscape, and provide figures to match Government targets – targets which will never be achieved, but which you are making sure are enshrined in this Housing Policy.

Your argument is that unless you have a Plan in place, many Developers will descend on us and the Council will be unable to show a housing Plan that will stop such unwanted developments. Well we can say for Mickleton that is no different from the situation your plan has left us with. There is simply no further space in Mickleton to build after you have carved the village up.

For this you offer us a Community Centre (We have a perfectly good hall) and a primary school. We assume you are going to knock down the one we already have so you can build more houses there, whilst building us a new bigger school to take the many children these new houses will bring us. You mention improved public transport, and include Honeybourne Station (In Worcestershire) as an asset. I assume you can arrange a bus to and from Honeybourne every half hour from 6 am to 9 pm to cover those people who might want to use ‘our station’. You do not acknowledge that they have a tiny car park, always full, which means many more car journeys to drop off and collect those who want to go by train. All this while conveniently ignoring and not engaging with the thousands of houses being built in Warwickshire.

Traffic through our village is already at breaking point, though we suppose having an extra 3000 cars will greatly improve the speeding problems we have, not the least in Stratford Road where speeds of 65 mph have been recorded by our Speed Check Camera. This is the road you intend to place the ‘new’ school in.

This plan is badly flawed and needs to be rejected in its present form

Yours 

Jerry Arnull

On behalf of MAID 

Representation Draft:  Mickleton Strategic Site Allocation.

Test of Soundness:  Not Effective and Not Justified.

Specific Policy / Section:  Draft Cotswold Local Plan 2026 – 2043, Development Strategy / Strategic Allocations for Mickleton (North and West strategic sites).

The Objection

The proposed allocation of 1,238 homes in Mickleton is not justified. The Council has disproportionately targeted Mickleton simply because it falls outside the Cotswolds National Landscape. This represents an unsustainable, geographically skewed strategy rather than an objective assessment of settlement capacity.  Forcing 1,238 homes onto a village with an existing baseline of roughly 954 homes forces a staggering 230% growth rate. The draft plan fails to provide proportional evidence to prove that a rural, edge-of-district settlement can absorb growth of this magnitude without irreversibly destroying its local character and landscape boundary.

Furthermore, the strategy is not effective. Mickleton suffers from distinct infrastructure bottlenecks, rural road network limitations, and a lack of direct high-capacity transit links to the district's primary economic hubs. Heavily escalating the village's population will severely strain existing community services, local healthcare, and rural utilities. Because Mickleton is geographically isolated at the northern tip of the district—closer to Stratford-upon-Avon than to Cirencester—the plan fails to demonstrate cross-border infrastructural or employment alignment with neighbouring authorities. This makes the delivery of a cohesive, sustainable community highly improbable over the plan period.

Suggested Remedy / Change Sought

Significantly reduce Mickleton's allocation:  Lower the housing target to a sustainable baseline (e.g., matching the previous village growth thresholds of approximately 400–600 homes).

Redistribute housing delivery:  Spread the excess requirement across a wider tier of Principal Settlements that possess superior infrastructural networks, stronger transit links, and greater capacity to absorb growth.

Incorporate a phased infrastructure trigger:  Restrict housing construction phases until binding funding commitments and capacity upgrades for local utility, education, and transport infrastructure are legally secured.