Cirencester Town Centre Masterplan - Initial ideas consultation

Climate change commitments detailed are promising, notably the emphasis on public transport and active travel provisions. Officer responses below are presented with respect to ‘principles’ in the master plan document: Principle 2: is heavily supported and encouraged. Several factors can further assist in meeting Net Zero goals from building and construction industry: • Developments should be in locations with good active travel and public transport infrastructure to minimise private vehicle use. Where this is currently not evidenced, provision for its installation/improvement should beconsidered. • Further mechanisms to discourage private vehicle use such as Car Club provisions, secure and waterproof cycle storage and reduced vehicle spaces should be adopted with new developments. • To promote low emission vehicles, all parking spaces should be provided with electric vehicle charging points (not just cables), going above and beyond the DHLUC Building Regulation’s new requirement of “Approved Document S: Infrastructure for the Charging of Electric Vehicles”. • Within developments, buildings should be designed in line with Passivhaus design, and exhibit features which boost energy efficiency, e.g. window orientation, size, glazing and deciduous vegetation that can provide cooling in summer and solar gain in winter. • Cotswold District Council should consider adopting a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on “Climate Change” for compliance of new developments. Cheltenham Borough Council's SPD is a recommended reference for this: link • To increase energy efficiency of buildings, renewable energy is to be prioritised. Installation of energy efficient technologies such as roof solar panels, heat pumps, district and communal heating, are to be promoted. Where possible, gas connection is to be avoided. • For improving air quality, wood burning stoves should not be incorporated into new developments where air quality issues are severe. In other places, wood stoves must adhere to high efficiency and clean environmental standards. The SPD should be applied when retrofitting existing housing stock also. • Construction process should be carried out in a manner that minimise impact on the environment. This can be enforced via condition at the planning stage e.g. through a Construction Environmental Management Plan. Principle 5: is heavily supported and encouraged. Public transport and active travel measures should be optimised where possible.

GCC officers have had some input into the draft Cirencester Town Centre Masterplan and are satisfied with the progress of the draft. The protection and enhancement of the historic environment are well covered. It should be noted that GCC officers are in process of providing further comments on the archaeological assessment work which is also being used to inform the Cirencester Town Centre Masterplan.

GCC officers welcome the focus within both the draft NDP and the Cirencester Masterplan process which seek to create opportunities for transport mode shift in Cirencester. This benefits quality of life and aligns to GCC’s commitment towards net zero. It has set a useful discussion agenda including issues around enhanced access and connectivity within and around Cirencester town. This process will produce a rich collection of views and ideas, and GCC transport planning officers and traffic managers welcome opportunities for close working as these plans are shaped by the local community. Both documents may wish to refer to the South Cotswolds CPS document within the adopted Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan (2020-2041). See: link Sustainable travel in Cirencester can be hindered by a lack of transport mode options. However, whilst a high number of journeys in and out of the town are by private cars, around a quarter of the journeys that begin and end within the town are on foot. Cirencester offers high quality public realm which supports attractive walking conditions, especially where motorised traffic and parking is managed appropriately. Whilst offering broad support in principle, GCC officers are unable to comment in detail on the proposed transport interchange hubs and their locations. Detailed consultation with bus operators, and GCC’s Strategic Transport Planning & Integrated Transport Unit will be required (and is requested) on this subject. GCC officers are also unable to comment on the traffic impacts of the proposed changes to the parking arrangements in Cirencester. A more detailed analysis, which may include modelling, is needed, as well as consultation with GCC Highways. One consequence of the semi-rural nature of the area around Cirencester is the limited availability of connected cycle routes out of the town. Busy roads are barriers to active travel (cycling and walking). Improvement initiatives that can be effective include personalised travel planning in new developments, low cost schemes to fill gaps in the cycle network and an ambition for a dedicated cycle link between Cirencester and Kemble railway station, with future scope to provide additional cycle links between Cirencester and South Cerney, Lechlade, and Tetbury via Kemble and even a route from Cirencester to Stroud as shown on the Countywide Strategic Cycleway Network desire lines. See: link. The aim is to offer a range of sustainable travel routes that will, over time, form part of the county’s strategic cycle network. In Cirencester, the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, proposes measures such as segregated cycling facilities on Chesterton Lane, traffic calming on Ashcroft Road and an at-grade crossing over the A429 to enable walking and cycling to and from the town centre. In addition, improvements to connectivity between the RAU, Cirencester College and town centre are advised, as well as links towards the Cotswold Water Park and Stratton. Along with side road entry treatments, footway widening and improved crossing facilities, rest areas and wayfinding are also identified as a requirement on corridors such as London Road, Castle Street and Dyer Street. In terms of related leisure and tourism offers, the Cotswold Water Park is a major tourist attraction. The strategic vision will aim to open it up for sustainable travel methods along routes identified on the Countywide Strategic Cycleway Network desire lines to implement sustainable leisure and tourism routes between the water park, South Cerney, Fairford and Cirencester, which in turn provides the opportunity to reduce reliance on car use, to manage traffic impacts. Public transport provision is relatively poor throughout the South Cotswolds, in part due to the dispersed nature of the villages here combined with the demographic. Only Cirencester benefits from a high frequency hourly service to Cheltenham and a cross boundary hourly service to Swindon. There is also a community bus service into the town which is vital to addressing social isolation and issues around equality. The development at Chesterton provides scope for improved bus infrastructure and services with an added benefit to services towards Kemble. In terms of rail, GCC officers are supportive of measures to maximise the potential of Kemble station which is a key sustainable rail connection to major regional and national destinations such as London. Its proximity to Cirencester means it is within accessible range to sustainable travel modes such as buses and the bicycle. Public and/or community transport services offer additional sustainable travel opportunities which can help to relieve car parking capacity constraints here. With respect to transport infrastructure improvements in Cirencester up to 2031, the adopted Local Transport Plan (link) seeks to improve the Five Ways junction, including crossing facilities, subject to funding. The A429 Cherry Tree Junction improvements have recently been delivered and comprise a new slip road at the junction of Cherrytree Lane, Burford Road, and Stow Road, designed to allow vehicles to turn left onto Stow Road A429. This will create extra capacity, ease congestion at the lights and reduce waiting time. Funding is still required for cycle access improvements between South Cerney and Cirencester; the Cirencester-Fairford corridor; and the Andoversford-Cirencester Active Travel Route. Funding for Kemble Railway Station enhancements is also still required. The role of these infrastructure improvements, and the routes they link into are important discussion points in local neighbourhood and town master planning discussions.

I HAVE LIVED AT BATH GATE PLACE SINCE IT WAS BUILT IN 2017. MY APARTMENT IS AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING ONE FLOOR UP AND I LOOK OVER THE OLD STATION CAR PARK. THE EYESORE AT PRESENT IS THE OLD STATION TICKET OFFICE - IN SCAFFOLDING AND PLASTIC. EVEM THAT IS PREFERABLE TO NEW BUILDING AND POSSIBLY EVENING ENTERTAINMENT AND BEING OVERLOOKED. PLEASE KEEP IT AS A CARPARK WHICH IS NEEDED.

We have owned No.5 Bathgate Place for 7 years; used as a second home to be near the family and in readiness for the needs of the future. We bought it for its great position on the edge of the town, the easy access to the facilities of the town and the quiet, safe access in the evenings. We congratulate you on the presentation of the Cirencester Local Plan. It is an excellent document. Cirencester is a jewel of a town and we should be proud to live here, among its historical buildings and lively modern life. As in every town or city today, the stress comes from traffic. So we were surprised to hear that the old Station car park might be used for building purposes. This car park is on the periphery of town (which is the right place for car parks) and from here there is easy access to shops, sports centre, Cirencester Park, etc. There is also a listed Building on the site - currently being renovated. There are many usable sites and empty shops in town which, if used, would keep everyday life together and not build even more sites for cars to visit! Maybe a Park and Ride for tourists would enhance our town.

I would like to provide a contribution to the local plan on behalf of the Phoenix Health Group, Cirencester. The Phoenix Health Group has expanded considerably since it moved in to its current premises at 9 Chesterton Lane, Cirencester. The Practice registered list size continues to grow. The list size in January 2019 was 21858 and this had increased to 24551 by April 2023. It is projected to grow to 26547 by 2031. The Practice is spread over 5 sites with approximately 11,000 patients currently using the Cirencester site. The building in Cirencester is at capacity. This has an impact on waiting times for doctor and nurse appointments resulting in distress for patients and difficult working conditions for staff. We have installed two portacabin rooms in our car park and these are at capacity. The portacabins have reduced the available car parking and led to access difficulties for patients and disruption to traffic on Chesterton Lane. The Practice would like to develop a new bespoke building in Cirencester to improve access to healthcare for our population.

Cirencester Action on Buses (CAB) Detailed proposed bus services for the new Steadings Development, Chesterton, Cirencester. NB not able to upload all of submission (e.g map of proposed route) due to incompatible file extensions. Objective: 1. To limit the traffic coming from The Steadings development to town. 2. Unless a fast, direct, regular, reliable and frequent bus service is in place when the new estate is almost complete, it is highly likely that the new occupants of the 2,350 new houses at The Steadings will use their own cars to get into and out of town. 3. This is to be avoided at all costs, as Cirencester is already subject to extreme traffic congestion and this extra traffic will further impinge on many roads into the town in order to access the town’s car parking. 4. Although pollution levels will be decreased by the increased uptake of electric or hybrid vehicles, without an optimum bus service the volume of traffic will still increase. Means to achieve the limitation of car traffic to/from The Steadings 1. Alongside the already proposed footpaths and cycleways we propose an express shuttle bus service that will encourage the new residents out of their cars and onto the bus. 2. We propose a circular clockwise bus route running from The Steadings into town via Tetbury Road, through the industrial estate and back again. 3. Route: Please see satellite map of Chesterton with route superimposed in blue and the boundaries of The Steadings estate outlined in pink (attached) • The route will run along the spine road through the centre of the estate (bar one small deviation, see later in document) so as to be accessible to all its residents. • It will then go onto the Tetbury road at the secondary roundabout to be built at the southwest corner of the development, and turn towards town. • The route will go straight across the next, primary access roundabout, then across the Stroud roundabout and down the dual carriageway, as now. • Once it turns off the hospital roundabout it will turn left into town up Hammond Way west, then left at the mini roundabout, left into Hammond Way north, then another roundabout turning right into the old Tetbury Road. • It will drop passengers off for town at the bus stop opposite the Old Railway Station. • It will then go along Sheep St and turn right down Hammond Way East, the entrance to Waitrose being on the left-hand side of the bus. • Then, take the first left exit on the hospital roundabout travelling east along the dual carriageway, and proceed to the Watermoor roundabout and turn right into Midland Road. • From there, it will go along Love Lane through the industrial estate, a route not as yet served by any bus service. • Then, onto Wilkinson Road and then Spratsgate Lane which enters the East side of the Steadings estate to complete its circle. • Please see separate document entitled ‘The Steadings Express Bus Shuttle, Proposed stops’, listing the proposed stops and the rationales for them. Timescale for the development of this service During the public hearing of the local plan the Inspector stipulated that a bus service must be provided for the early residents of the development. • We suggest that initially, this service operates on a temporary truncated route when Phase 1a ie the very first part of the Steadings Development to be built, has been completed. • This temporary truncated route is needed at this early stage, only because, if the Spine Road running through the estate (see the Steadings parameter plan) is not completed, it would be impossible to adopt our full, proposed clockwise route. So, a halfway house has to be adopted. • Therefore, we suggest that initially, the bus goes into the area of The Steadings known as Phase 1A (ie the first the part of the estate to be built) but then turns around and runs into the town via Wilkinson Road, the Love Lane estate and the bypass. Dropping off passengers at the stop opposite the Old Railway Station, then going past the Waitrose entrance, back to Midland Road and Love Lane Industrial estate and back to Phase 1a to complete its circuit. • This temporary, truncated route may tempt operators to run around the more heavily populated areas of the town as well, but this must be resisted and kept as a Steadings specific service. • If this truncated service is not in place, residents will always use their cars and not want to use public transport then or later, which for congestion reasons and sustainability reasons must be avoided. • To ensure viability it is clear that this service must be less frequent than our full clockwise route. • We suggest a half-hourly, or less frequent service is running between the Steadings and town and back again when the first phase of the build (Named by BDL as Phase 1A) is in place. • As the build of the site progresses and the Spine Road is completed, then it will be possible to run the full, clockwise route at a frequency determined by the occupancy level of the houses. • Therefore, the frequency should increase incrementally during the growth of the project. • It is key that the Spine Road is constructed and working as early as possible in the build. • This temporary truncated route is needed at this early stage, only because, if the Spine Road running through the estate (see the Steadings parameter plan) is not completed, it would be impossible to adopt our full, proposed clockwise route. So, a halfway house has to be adopted. • Therefore, we suggest that initially, the bus goes into the area of The Steadings known as Phase 1A (ie the first the part of the estate to be built) but then turns around and runs into the town via Wilkinson Road, the Love Lane estate and the bypass. Dropping off passengers at the stop opposite the Old Railway Station, then going past the Waitrose entrance, back to Midland Road and Love Lane Industrial estate and back to Phase 1a to complete its circuit. • This temporary, truncated route may tempt operators to run around the more heavily populated areas of the town as well, but this must be resisted and kept as a Steadings specific service. • If this truncated service is not in place, residents will always use their cars and not want to use public transport then or later, which for congestion reasons and sustainability reasons must be avoided. • To ensure viability it is clear that this service must be less frequent than our full clockwise route. • We suggest a half-hourly, or less frequent service is running between the Steadings and town and back again when the first phase of the build (Named by BDL as Phase 1A) is in place. • As the build of the site progresses and the Spine Road is completed, then it will be possible to run the full, clockwise route at a frequency determined by the occupancy level of the houses. • Therefore, the frequency should increase incrementally during the growth of the project. • It is key that the Spine Road is constructed and working as early as possible in the build. Provision for linking residents of the southwest quadrant into the bus/cycle/footpath networks of the main estate We feel it is essential that the residents of the housing in the southwest quadrant of The Steadings have available the full range of transport infrastructure. Currently, in the draft plan this housing is cut off from the main estate by a green space barrier. We suggest: • This is linked into the main estate by a bi-directional footpath/cycle track • Plus, a single direction ‘bus gate’ that runs alongside it, which would allow the main clockwise bus route from the estate to divert from the spine road just before the main estate roundabout, pass through the bus gate and exit at the secondary roundabout onto the Tetbury Road. Further advantages to the adoption of the bus gate and our proposed clockwise express Steadings bus shuttle Easy access to the RAU Agri-technology Centre 1. The Royal Agricultural University are developing an Agri-technology Research Centre (ARC) 2. The centre will be built alongside the northern side of the Tetbury Road in the area of the old tennis courts (see parameter plan of the Steadings) with footpaths leading from it to the rest of the campus. 3. The arrival of this centre will mean a significant number of new staff/visitors working on the RAU site, with more to come in future as the centre expands. 4. It is certain that a considerable number of residents of the Steadings will seek employment there and so need transport to the site. • We propose the Steadings Express shuttle bus should have a lay-by stop at the entrance to the RAU Agri-technology Research Centre, • to accommodate everyone on the estate and elsewhere in the town who need access to the RAU. Proposed Park and Ride site and potential rail terminus at the southwest secondary roundabout Our route would facilitate a park and ride site and possible rail terminus for a proposed rail link to Kemble station. • We feel it desirable that a park and ride site be considered south of the Tetbury Road and adjacent to the secondary roundabout. • This would accommodate car traffic heading for the town from the southwest and the Stroud directions. • It is possible that some of this space be reserved for a proposed rail terminus at this point. • This would link the rail terminus to Kemble station. • Additionally, it is possible that this site may provide some future parking expansion by the RAU. • All of these services, would be linked to the RAU and the town by the use of the fast Steadings shuttle bus service. • This area would be serviced by a number of buses, including, the Steadings Express Shuttle Bus, the 882 bus to/from Kemble (a key service for Steadings residents) and would also have potential for a very local transit bus run by the RAU which would ferry RAU staff into town and into the new ARC and onwards by foot into the main campus. 882 bus providing the link to Kemble station This existing service will link the Steadings to Kemble station. It is certain that a sizeable number of Steadings residents will wish to travel daily to/from Kemble station. In order to achieve this, we are proposing that: • The 882 bus would follow the same route out of the town as the Steadings Express Shuttle bus. • Entering the estate through the eastern gate and running clockwise through the spine road in the estate, • Exiting at the southwest corner onto the secondary access roundabout. • This would perform the important function of allowing residents from the whole length of the estate to catch the bus heading for Kemble station. • NB: It is important that attention be given to residents getting home on the return from Kemble station. • Therefore the 882 bus should divert very slightly through Ewen on its return trip, so going into Spratsgate Lane, again passing clockwise through the length of the estate dropping people off at the respective points on their way home, • Finally exiting the estate at the southwest secondary roundabout and turning right along the Tetbury Road and completing its journey into the town centre. • This 882 bus and its appropriate times would enable residents of the town and all the residents of the Steadings to have a service to and from Kemble station. • Clearly, if Cirencester Community Railway Group succeed in their proposal for a light railway service, the timings of the trains and buses would have to be reviewed.

BDL is in general support of the direction of the Masterplan in how it seeks to prioritise sustainable development within Cirencester and encourages healthy place-shaping. We note the aim of supporting development that delivers a diverse mix of uses and services, a principle which aligns with the scheme on the strategic site south of Chesterton, Cirencester (now called The Steadings). In particular BDL supports the desire to improve mobility and accessibility within Cirencester through Principle 5 (Transport) and Principle 6 (Permeability and Better Connections). These Principles enhance the accessibility of Cirencester’s Town Centre with new development within the town’s urban fringes, such as The Steadings. The Steadings development includes new transport infrastructure which provides new and enhanced links into the Town Centre. BDL supports the creation of a new east-west pedestrian and cycle route as this provides the opportunity to connect to active travel routes proposed as part of the Steadings development. BDL does question the need for this document in addition to the Cirencester Neighbourhood Plan which the Town Council is progressing? If both documents proceed then any duplication and/or conflicts need to be resolved to avoid confusion during implementation.

CTC’s overall view is that the TCMP high level proposals are broadly in line with the Cirencester Draft Neighbourhood Plan, with exception of points raised.

The Forum (pg 64) CTC feels that the building styles shown here, as an illustration of what could be, are inappropriate and not in keeping with Cirencester.

Connecting the Amphitheatre (pg 60) CTC welcomes the proposed Amphitheatre connection on foot.

Land Uses (pg 56) Regarding Town Centre zones – CTC would like to see an expansion of the defined area of Town Centre to include Barn Theatre, associated boutique hotel and nearby tourist accommodation in Beeches Road.

Access & Movement (pg 52) • CTC supports a mobility hub but would like to see a number of options considered. Of the three potential mobility hub locations proposed, Forum seems most viable and CTC would like to understand why Waterloo is not proposed as a potential site for a mobility hub. • CTC would welcome consideration of a Park and ride proposal for site adjacent to ‘The Steadings’ development at Tetbury Road site (Cirencester Action on Buses).

Principle 6: Permeability and Better Connections CTC are content with proposals but question how it is proposed to get bicycles through safely or at all given the density of buildings between Old Station Carpark and Waterloo Carpark.

Principle 5: Transport – 21st Century Mobility • CTC is generally content with parking proposals but parking issues in Gloucester St area need to be addressed. On-street parking problems continue to be a significant source of worry for many residents struggling to sustain daily life, receive the personal care they need and maintain their homes. Currently, many residential streets are used as free long-term car parks by commuters, shoppers and visitors. There is a need for reserved areas for on-street parking for residents, carers and the disabled, but we appreciate that this matter is not straight forward, would impact individuals in different ways and would be difficult to get the right balance between the differing needs. • Cirencester is unique in that there are a number of private carparks e.g. Bathurst/Hospital/SJP. • Care needs to be taken to ensure distances people are being asked to walk, are realistic. The Rugby Club car park for example, would be considered too far for some.

Principle 1: Natural Environment – more multifunctional green and blue infrastructure. Principle 2: New Development = Net Zero Carbon Principle 3: The Historic Environment – better connecting people with Cirencester past Principle 4: Townscape and Enhanced Views • Support for proposals contained in sections 1-4 above. • Content with overall ethos as aspirational but question how it will be delivered.

Our [Historic England] observations can be summarised as follows: 1. We are pleased to note the special emphasis given to Cirencester as an important historic market town of national significance. The identification of its distinctive historic character and its application as an underpinning criterion in the determination of suitable solutions and measures for success will help ensure that any and all proposals will enhance the town’s enduring and defining qualities. 2. While the rationale for those proposals no doubt forms part of the underpinning evidence base for the Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan and Masterplan itself, it might be useful if the issues, and the reasons for addressing them now, were more explicitly set out in the Masterplan document. For example, the structure of the document tends to identify relevant issues and considerations within the narrative associated with thematic chapters where there is a risk of them being inadvertently overlooked or underplayed. If the premise for the masterplan were set out more overtly at its outset, perhaps in the form of a summarised SWAT analysis, this would provide a logical framework for what follows. 3. Such an approach would also help define how the outputs/outcomes have been determined and the manner in which they should be delivered in order to maximise sustainable and measurable success. In addition it would lend itself to the identification of dependencies for, and inter-dependencies between, proposals, and assist in the formulation of a programme for their delivery. 4. We note the impressive schedule of heritage assets which the masterplan identifies but it will be important to proceed with an holistic understanding of the heritage of the town and how the individual assets contribute to this individually and collectively to create a distinctive whole. Understanding relationships between those assets will also be critical to the making of informed decisions on the town’s future. 5. In this respect it could be an over-simplification to focus so exclusively on the town’s Roman/Post Roman and mediaeval historic character. It will be important to demonstrate how later phases of the town’s development contribute to its historic character and the degree to which this should inform proposed decision making. While reinstating a major east – west strategic connection as a lost Roman feature, for example, appears to be a laudable aspiration, the potential consequences of this for subsequent layers of the town’s physical history needs to be appreciated and weighed in the final analysis of the merits of such a proposal. 6. This point highlights the need for appropriate heritage evidence at all levels of understanding and significance to inform the full scale of proposals and eventual decisions from the very minor to the major. No doubt your authority’s heritage team (conservation officers and archaeologists) has been involved and advised upon the preparation of the Masterplan, and it will be important for this input to continue to ensure that the evidence base and its application is sound and consistent with national and local policy for the protection and enhancement of the historic environment.. 7. In terms of images used to create impressions and inform thinking about briefs for discrete areas of possible change, it is desirable that these are drawn from relevant or compatible historic market town contexts to ensure their relevance and usefulness. 8. Otherwise, and overall, we applaud your authority and its local partners in the commissioning of this work, and its thoughtfulness in identifying and setting out potential aspirations for the town.

CDC states that it is in the process of commissioning a transport study to assess how people access and move across Cirencester to support the forthcoming Masterplan SPD. National Highways would welcome engagement on the development of this study on the basis that a review of existing car park provision and potential Park and Ride and/or Park and Stride sites has the potential to influence traffic demand across Cirencester and on the SRN. Of particular interest is any change in demand at the A417/A449 Cirencester junction, and we would therefore request this junction is included within the scope of the study. National Highways looks forward to working with Cotswold District Council in respect of the assessment of the SPD impacts and identifying if any infrastructure improvements on/for the SRN are necessary in the context of potential additional Park and Ride and/or Park and Stride sites to improve sustainable access into Cirencester town centre.

Six principles are proposed for the development of the Cirencester Masterplan SPD, three of which relate to sustainable transport. These include: - Principle 2: Development = Net Zero Carbon – we agree that development should include modal shift to sustainable transport but careful consideration should be given to the town centre access strategy in terms of ensuring access for all users is facilitated - Principle 5: Transport – careful selection of any new Park and Ride/Stride sites should be given to ensure that this results in the desired modal shift. We welcome that this is proposed to be undertaken in conjunction with the delivery of a new mobility hub; and - Principle 6: Permeability and Better Connections – the focus on improving active travel connections is supported as we would expect this to improve the delivery of modal shift away from the private car for short journeys, thereby reducing vehicular demand on the surrounding road network.

The Framework Masterplan SPD consultation document does not state the horizon year for the SPD. National Highways would appreciate clarity of this point as the other current consultation documents have horizon years of 2031 and 2041. Movement and Connectivity: Existing Road infrastructure Cirencester is described as “well connected” in terms of SRN and LRN connectivity. Whilst this is the case it is important to note that the Local Plan objectives are aligned with NPPF and Circular 01/2022 in terms of enabling sustainable development and managing down demand on the SRN thus ensuring a safe and efficient operation of the SRN. On this basis we welcome CDC reviewing “Potential transport hubs” but as per above we would support this title being renamed to “Potential sustainable transport hubs.” The text appears to refer to sustainable transport options and therefore may benefit from clarification. Any additional transport infrastructure or services that feed into the emerging masterplan should be included within the transport evidence base for the SPD and emerging Local Plan.

Lastly, the draft Framework Masterplan for Cirencester Town Centre makes three references to Cirencester Police Station, two of which are in the “Views and vistas” section on page 38, the other being in the “Barriers to views” section on page 40 where it is noted that the Police Station is noted as undermining the quality of views towards the tower of St John the Baptist Church. As indicated above, the OPCC and Gloucestershire Constabulary have no plans to relocate from the existing Cirencester Police Station, which meets present operational needs. It is possible that this position may in the future be altered by the implementation of Cotswold District Council’s planned redevelopment of the Town Centre, but for now the OPCC has no plans to change Cirencester Police Station.

As at March 2024 the OPCC and Gloucestershire Constabulary have no plans to redevelop or relocate from the existing Cirencester Police Station, which meets present operational needs. The Magistrates Courts, which is also owned by the OPCC, is occupied by HM Courts Service and is presently in use for backlog cases. The OPCC does not have any plans to redevelop the Magistrate Courts at this point in time. OPCC consultation response: The OPCC is aware from the draft Framework Masterplan and the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan (2011 to 2031) of Cotswold District Council’s plans to redevelop Cirencester Town Centre in the future, including the following proposed development sites: • Cirencester Magistrates Courts – residential • Memorial Hospital – residential-led • Sheep Street Island – mixed use • Forum Car Park – retail-led • Brewery Car Park – retail-led • Waterloo Car Park – decked car parking The OPCC has also noted that Adopted Cotswold District Local Plan Policy S1 references the need for supporting infrastructure but without a reference to police or emergency service infrastructure. The OPCC anticipates that the existing Cirencester Police Station will be sufficient to meet the needs of the above proposed development, as set out in the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan. It is noted by the OPCC that the Cotswold District Local Plan Update Consultation version (as presently out to Regulation 18 public consultation closing 7 April 2024) proposes the extension of the Local Plan period to 2041 and allocates the sites of both Cirencester Magistrates Courts and Cirencester Police Station for residential development. The OPCC is committed to having a Police Station within Cirencester, therefore in order for the existing Police Station site to be released in the future for residential development, a replacement Police Station of a suitable size in an appropriate location within Cirencester would need to be provided in advance, to the satisfaction of the OPCC and Gloucestershire Constabulary. On page 3 of the draft Masterplan it is stated that: “the masterplan will be a Supplementary Planning Document that builds upon and provides more detailed advice and guidance on policies in the Cotswold District Local Plan and the Cirencester Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, they will guide and help coordinate future development and infrastructure in Cirencester Town Centre.” (our emphasis) Despite the above statement (emphasised in bold), whilst there is content within the draft masterplan on green and blue infrastructure requirements, the masterplan is not explicit about all of the other types of infrastructure that will be needed to support the proposed future redevelopment of Cirencester Town Centre. These include police infrastructure and emergency services infrastructure generally (ie police, fire and rescue and ambulance infrastructure). The OPCC therefore requests that consideration is given to adding an infrastructure section to the draft Framework Town Centre Masterplan. This should include information on how and where from the three emergency services would provide cover to the public and property within the Town Centre as is proposed for redevelopment. The draft Framework Town Centre Masterplan should also recognise the need for a replacement Police Station to be provided in order to free up the site of the existing Police Station for residential development as proposed, also addressing how and where the existing Cirencester Police Station could be replaced.

The attached pdf sets out Thames' standard guidance and advice regarding water supply, water efficiency, wastewater management and flooding. It reiterates relevant parts of the NPPF. It is general and "off the shelf" in nature and there is no specific reference to the Masterplan proposals. It appears to conflate the Masterplan with the Neighbourhood Plan. It includes some suggested policy wording, although the Masterplan will not contain any policies.

Regarding the Cirencester Town Centre masterplan, the three hubs marked on an indicative plan represent the Market Place, the Forum and the Brewery Car Park. These sites were identified in work undertaken by ITP for Cotswold Borough Council which was completed around a year ago. Other potential hub sites, mainly in peripheral car parks, were not supported by ITP, following a multi-criteria appraisal. Of the three sites, the Brewery Car Park would be quite difficult for bus access, due to the very constrained nature of the surrounding street network. The Market Place would certainly be the favoured site for the main bus operator Stagecoach. However, the high quality of the surrounding built environment would probably result in a rather ‘minimalist’ facility, which would still be much better than the parked cars currently occupying this space. The Forum area could be much better arranged and designed than the current arrangements. The location is not too far to walk rom the Town Centre (although out of sight and not well signposted) and facilities for bus passengers could be much improved compared to the current rather bleak facility., My overarching comment is that Cirencester appears to perform very poorly for bus services and connectivity compared to Witney, the administrative and commercial centre of West Oxfordshire, some 25 miles to the east. The main hub for buses in Witney is in the very centrally located Market Square. There are approx. 10 double-deck bus departures each hour from Witney, to Oxford by three different routes, to Woodstock, to North, East and Central Oxford, to Carterton and to Cheltenham, there are three single-deck services each hour to Chipping Norton, Burford, Bampton, Abingdon and Swindon, then apporx 4 minibus departures each hour to different residential areas. The bus hub is very well used by local people and always feels very busy, compared to the Forum in Cirencester.

One further comment I have received from several visitors to the town is the lack of free toilets. Cirencester was compared badly with other choice destinations. The cost must be weighed up against how friendly the town seems to visitors - the “shall we visit again”? question. Costs will be incurred but the cost of basic men’s urinals need not be much, they don’t even need a roof over. I also received comment that the free toilets in Abbey Grounds had two major drawbacks: 1. The doors need a simple handle fitted on the inside - cost less than £10 each - to enable the doors to be pulled shut . The existing stylish twist nob cannot be pulled, only turned. Visitors said they either used the toilet but struggled with the door or declined to use the toilet. 2. They close too early, often even before 4pm, seemingly on the whim of the person looking after them.

Have sufficient seating in public areas that visitors and residents can enjoy being outside . They can sit and talk or read, or watch the world go by. Seats to be of a material that they are warm enough to sit on at most time a or the year.

Introduce a connection with water by installing several fountains in key locations with the same sort of charm that you find in historic cities in Italy. This would be much better than a beach - easier to keep tidy/clean. One could be big enough to enable wading into. Should be in middle of pedestrian areas not isolated in car parks.

The wellbeing of the elderly residents of Bath Gate Place retirement flats is of paramount importance. We do not support any development of the car park at Old Station. The residents need peace and security. Please leave it as a car park. Do not build on it. We do however support sensitive use of the Grade II Listed Building on the site and preservation of the boundary heritage wall

Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) / National Landscape boarders’ parts of Cirencester and the plan will need to ensure that it conserves and enhances the area’s natural beauty. We would also draw your attention to Section 245 (Protected Landscapes) of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 which places a duty on relevant authorities in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, the Broads or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ( “National Landscape”) in England, to seek to further the statutory purposes of the area.

The NPPF includes a number of design principles which could be considered, including the impacts of lighting on landscape and biodiversity (paragraph 191). The National Design Guide and National Model Design Code set out further detail on designing for nature.

We particularly welcome the proposed new connection of the amphitheatre, via bridge link, across the A429 which will further encourage active travel. Effective implementation would overcome the constraint of Movement and Connectivity (page 40). Principle 6 provides an opportunity for the plan to set a design standard for high quality placemaking. To do so, Natural England provides the following advice: Wider Environmental Gains Natural England focusses its advice on embedding biodiversity net gain in development plans, as the approach is currently better developed than for wider environmental gains. The plan should reflect the NPPF (paragraph 74, 108,124 and 180) and seek opportunities for wider net environmental gains wherever possible. Opportunities for environmental gains, including nature-based solutions to help adapt to climate chance, might include: •Managing existing and new public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wildflower strips) and climate resilient. •Planting trees, including street trees, characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape. •Improving access and links to existing greenspace, identifying improvements to the existing public right of way network or extending the network to create missing footpath or cycleway links. •Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. a hedgerow or stone wall or clearing away an eyesore). •Designing a scheme to encourage wildlife, for example by ensuring lighting does not pollute areas of open space or existing habitats. It should be noted that habitat creation and/or enhancement provided as wider environmental gains may also deliver a biodiversity net gain where measurable within the statutory Biodiversity Metric. Natural England’s Environmental Benefits from Nature tool can be used to help identify wider environmental gains.

The masterplan could aim to achieve a greater focus on biodiversity enhancement. Development also provides opportunities to secure wider biodiversity enhancements and environmental gains, as outlined in the NPPF (paragraphs 8, 74, 108, 124, 180, 181 and 186). Opportunities for enhancement might include incorporating features to support specific species within the design of new buildings such as swift or bat boxes or designing lighting to encourage wildlife. Natural England’s Environmental Benefits from Nature Tool may be used to identify opportunities to enhance wider benefits from nature and to avoid and minimise any negative impacts. Major development must now deliver a biodiversity gain of at least 10% and this requirement is due to be extended to smaller scale development in spring 2024. Further information on biodiversity net gain, including planning practice guidance, can be found here. Local Nature Recovery Strategies will also set out biodiversity opportunities. There is further information in Planning Practice Guidance for the natural environment.

The masterplans proposed new active travel and mobility hub provides the potential to secure a reduction in pollution in the town centre. Could the proposal be strengthened by planting trees in the centre of Cirencester in the new pedestrianised area? Trees can help to reduce pollution in areas when designed appropriately. Further information can be found in here (pages 22-29). Trees can also aid in reducing urban heat. Further information can be found here.

Principles 1 and 2: Natural Environment and Development = Net Zero Carbon. We welcome the inclusion of the potential routes for the 20-minute neighbourhood network and would like to see them come to fruition. Evidence demonstrates the need for more nature-rich and better quality accessible green space close to where people live and work for the multiple benefits that it provides for people and nature. This was particularly highlighted by the covid lockdowns. When developing brownfield land the Green Infrastructure (GI) Standards should be used, Green Infrastructure Home (naturalengland.org.uk) including the Urban Greening Factor (UGF), promote Page 2 of 3 nature-rich environments that increase the functionality, sustainability, and climate resilience of urban areas. UGFs can be used alongside Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), especially on sites with no or very limited pre-existing biodiversity value, to drive urban greening by helping to set the quantity and functionality of green infrastructure that should be delivered on-site. The masterplan should be in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and any GI strategy covering your area. Development should be designed to meet the 15 Green Infrastructure Principles. The GI Standards can be used to inform the quality, quantity and type of GI to be provided. Major development should have a GI plan including a long-term delivery and management plan. GI mapping resources are available here and here. These can be used to help assess deficiencies in greenspace provision and identify priority locations for new GI provision. Further information is set out in the Planning Practice Guidance on Green Infrastructure

Principles 1 and 2: Natural Environment and Development = Net Zero Carbon. We welcome the inclusion of the potential routes for the 20-minute neighbourhood network and would like to see them come to fruition. Evidence demonstrates the need for more nature-rich and better quality accessible green space close to where people live and work for the multiple benefits that it provides for people and nature. This was particularly highlighted by the covid lockdowns. When developing brownfield land the Green Infrastructure (GI) Standards should be used, Green Infrastructure Home (naturalengland.org.uk) including the Urban Greening Factor (UGF), promote nature-rich environments that increase the functionality, sustainability, and climate resilience of urban areas. UGFs can be used alongside Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), especially on sites with no or very limited pre-existing biodiversity value, to drive urban greening by helping to set the quantity and functionality of green infrastructure that should be delivered on-site. The masterplan should be in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and any GI strategy covering your area. Development should be designed to meet the 15 Green Infrastructure Principles. The GI Standards can be used to inform the quality, quantity and type of GI to be provided. Major development should have a GI plan including a long-term delivery and management plan. GI mapping resources are available here and here. These can be used to help assess deficiencies in greenspace provision and identify priority locations for new GI provision. Further information is set out in the Planning Practice Guidance on Green Infrastructure

As a Flood Warden for CDC I think that Flood wardens could make a significant input to the infrastructure problems associated with Flood risk and mitigation.

There is a consistent reference in the documents to St John the Baptist Church which should be corrected to St. John Baptist Church.

the dark green area shown is actually the St John Baptist Churchyard which lies to the south of the Abbey Grounds.

My overriding priority for Cirencester is the provision of a purpose built Medical Centre for the local GP’s and support staff in a central location which should be specifically identified. I have made similar comments to the Town Council in their Neighbourhood Plan. There are plenty of examples in other towns in Gloucestershire where the local authorities and the GP’s have worked together to provide a solution. The existing practices surgeries are poorly located and invariably using converted Victorian domestic dwellings which are totally unsuitable in the 21st Century.

The existing GP needs in Cirencester for new premise. The ICB is currently reviewing its investment strategy for GP provision across Gloucestershire. Within Cirencester two practices (3 premises), have identified needs for new GP provision: Cirencester Health Group - 2 premises existing in the Town Centre. Phoenix Health Group - peripheral location on Chesterton Lane. In addition Chesterton development, remains a need, as safeguarded free land (0.2 hectares for at least 3 Gps and associated staff) is safeguarded on site, with the alternative of off - site commuted sum if there are no applicants for on-site. If the Primary care provision is to be off -site there are location criteria, related to accessibility without necessitating a car. No money was provided for construction costs. Park Surgery has no accommodation needs, and is relatively modern. so is not part of any proposals. Local Plan The Local Plan identifies a need for a new GP surgery in Cirencester. I am assuming that related to the replacement of the two premises of Cirencester Health Group in the Town Centre. It is possible that the need for a replacement Surgery for Phoenix Health Group has emerged since the 2018 Local Plan, The Local Plan also refers to the separate need for the Chesterton site to provide for its needs. But the reality is that a Small Surgery associated with the new Chesterton site would not be provided, as only free land is provided (no construction costs), and a Surgery of the size needed, is far too small to be provided. The current draft Cirencester Town Centre Plan indicates a site that could provide a site for a Healthcare Centre. The Options I estimate the Patients needing to be accommodated by one or two Healthcare Centres as being around 35,000 if a 10% growth allowance is included. It is high, as around 19,000 of existing Cirencester Patients come from outside cirencester. A single new Healthcare Centre would be large, providing for up to 35,000 Patients. It would logically be in the Town Centre, as being the most sustainable location, for access other than by car. However, as Cirencester is expanding to the south, where one of the existing Surgeries needing replacement is (Phoenix Health Group), as is the new Chesterton development site, a two Healthcare solution would be far more appropriate, and best meet the needs of existing and new Patients. One Healthcare Centre would be in the Town Centre, replacing the 2 premises of Cirencester Health Group. That would remain a sustainable location, and not be disruptive to Patients using that site. As part of a comprehensive redevelopment, and CDC owning the site, it should be possible to put together a financial package, along with the ICB to provide the Healthcare Centre. The other Healthcare Centre would be a combination of the needs of Phoenix Health Group, and the defined need for around 5500 additional people for the Chesterton site. This would be least disruptive for Phoenix Healthcare Group Patients, and well located for the Chesterton site. For both sets of users it should be sustainable, as closest by walking, and with the development of Chesterton, new public transport links would be created. The location could be either: 1. On the Chesterton site, by enlarging the free safeguarded land. 2. identifying an alternative site within one mile of the Chesterton site, and located to also serve the existing Phoenix Surgery 'catchment area'; or it could be on a site with good public transport network from both the Chesterton development, and for the existing Phoenix 'catchment area'. The landowner of the Chesterton site would fund the free alternative off -site land, to include using the index linked £348,600 sum, plus extra money to enable free provision of land. Consequential changes to Chesterton development in order to fund the construction of either 1 or 2. An extra 50 residential units would be allowed on the Chesterton site, on the condition (Secured by a Deed of variation to the original Section 106 Agreement, a varied masterplan, and planning permission would also be needed, The requirement would be: The land for the Healthcare Centre is provided free, and the design and construction would be at the expense of the land owner of Chesterton. The ICB would pay yearly rent to cover the construction expenditure (but with no land value Premium). . Rates would also be paid by the ICB. After the equivalent time for the ICB to pay cover design and construction expenditure, the Healthcare Centre to be given free to the ICB. The %, mix and type of affordable housing, would be established by viability testing with as close to 40% as possible, bur with an absolute minimum of 20% matching that on the remainder of the site, which was so low due to high Infrastructure Costs, both on and off - site. There is no need for new residential allocations in CDC until 2031. The additional 50 residential units would only be allowed as they are enabling/facilitating the provision of needed Infrastructure (One of the Healthcare Centres). A 2% increase in units on the same built area will be achievable, as the trend is towards higher densities. The agreement of the land owner of the Chesterton site would obviously be needed. If the Plan becomes 2026 - 2041 then new residential would be needed, it should however still be made clear that the 50 extra units is still only be allowed on the conditional basis outlined.

Park and Ride, electric powered , with PV panel covered parking. - Cirencester needs a Park and Ride (P/R), to drive home its green agenda and reduce the need for car access /car parking in town, and act as a draw to out of town visitors/shoppers etc. - location to be in corner of field at the London Road/Grove Lane roundabout. (The current rugby Club location could be considered also, but has less good access/connections). This could be screened by trees/hedges. - the P/R route to link to transport hub(s) in town - the car park would be covered by PV panels, used to charge electric busses. This approach is now being deployed in many countries. - cost of installation and its maintenance to be borne by the operator, who will have the rights to the electricity generated and the charge if any for the ride into town. Bus design to be agreed as suitable for easy access/storage of shopping etc.. - a number of shopping outlets , single storey, could be considered on the car park , rent accruing to CDC/CTC. - a commitment to an agreed service level/frequency/hours / route etc to be agreed at the outset.

A walkway from The Steadings into town covered in photovoltaic cells. This will enable: - green energy to be generated. Such approaches are now being taken in many European and other countries. - pedestrian movement into town in all weathers, improving health and reducing traffic. - of particular help to infirm or mothers with prams who cannot dodge the weather, and will get children exercised. - cost of construction to be borne by the installer, who will have the rights to the electricity generated. Installer also to ensure maintenance /visuals .Possibly use electricity generated to power lighting of the walkway at night and power electric car charging on The Steadings. - design to be carefully planned, may need to zig zag to maximise sun. PV panels can now be made to look like roofing slates. Columns could be metallic with period finish. - will need to cross Bristol Road at high level…such an additional crossing will be needed anyway. - if built sooner rather than later, well before the Steadings is completed. energy can be harvested sooner and it might add to the attraction of living on The Steadings. - once extended into The Steadings, walkway might split into different corners to extend range. - usual cctv/ safety features will be needed…whatever walkway is built .

Currently I note that no specific reference is made to hotel(s) being included. The Local Plan identifies such as an appropriate Town Centre use. Given that Cirencester is the largest Town, such a use should be refereed to. One significant hotel could represent an excellent 'anchor use' to development. I think that I am right in saying that Cirencester has little in the way of hotels, except small ones. Encouraging a significant hotel could be a good way to help facilitate redevelopment. The Cotswolds Inns Hotels would be good to talk to, given their existing presence across the Cotswolds, and their local linkages. Although they tend to be smaller than an 'anchor' hotel. They could however represent an excellent additional hotel.

Movement & Connectivity, National Cycling Route, Page 28. The statement here is misleading when it says NCN Route 48 runs through the northern part of the Town Centre implying it finishes there and that the route runs between Cirencester and Northleach. NCN route 48 in fact joins NCN route 45 West in Cirencester then follows it for 7/8 miles to about a mile past Rodmarton. At this point NCN 48 splits from NCN 45 and turns South for ~ 4 miles to Tetbury where it terminates. See National Cycle Network Map: link;lon=-2.923634&zoom=8.4445&style=Standard&type=2d&overlays=os-ncn-layer There used to be no problem with this arrangement but this was before Cricklade Street was closed to most motorised traffic in working hours and it was made a one way street. Cyclists travelling South on NCN 48 can cycle down Cricklade Street and join NCN 45 to travel East towards Swindon or East towards Stroud or continue on NCN 48.The problem is cyclists can't travel in the reverse direction from NCN 45 onto NCN 48 since Cricklade Street was made a one way street with No Entry signs at the junction with Ashcroft Road. This is a major problem and inconvenience for cyclists passing through Cirencester as the junction of NCN 45 and NCN 48 is not signposted either. Currently cyclists heading North don't see any directions and consequently find themselves travelling out of Cirencester or get lost trying to navigate a complicated one way system they are unfamiliar with. The pedestrian movement map of Cirencester on page 31 actually shows NCN 48 stopping when it gets to the Market Place with no indication how cyclists on NCN 45 can reach it Even if you are familiar with Cirencester it is difficult to follow the NCN 48 from Tetbury towards Northleach. I turn off Ashcroft Road across the Brewery car park and through the passage the other side on to Castle Street. I turn right on to Castle Street then left at the traffic lights on to Gosditch Street and NCN 48. Of course this isn't signposted and is difficult to describe. I believe the simplest solution to this problem the Council introduced with its road scheme is to change the No Entry signs at the junction of Cricklade Street with Ashcroft Road to say "No Entry except for cyclists". There are lots of streets in Britian that allow cyclists to travel in both directions in one way street like this and there is little motorised traffic anyway due to the restrictions that have been introduced. Alternatively the Council should devise a recommended route for cyclists to connect from NCN 45 to NCN 48 going North and signpost the route whatever is decided.

Free short term parking (ie 20 mins max) should be acvailable in the centre for brief stops to pick up prescriptions/dry cleraning/dropping off elderly relatives near cafes (who are poor walkers but do not have a Blue Badge). Cycling routes that are useful and connect where people live to the centre, as well as work/school.

Natural England are Statutory Consultees, I am trying to upload a letter as form of response to this consultation, I believe it has been sent in EMAIL form already but there does not seem to be an easy way to upload a letter please contact Sharon.Jenkins@naturalengland.org.uk

Theatres Trust welcomes recognition of the Barn Theatre as a key cultural and visitor attraction for the town. Given the theatre’s edge of centre location we support the principle of better wayfinding and permeability. The document also supports new residential dwellings being introduced into the town centre, referencing an increased population supporting the viability of other uses particularly the evening economy. Whilst this is true and something we support in principle, there is also a need for residential uses to be sensitively located so as not to undermine the very evening uses which provide vitality. The document might therefore reference a need to manage noise impacts to protect existing uses and town centre diversity, and ensure that living conditions for incoming residents are appropriate.

A foot bridge over Phoenix Way and Bristol Road to reach the Amphitheatre would be a little shorter than walking up Querns Hill and Cotswold Avenue to reach the Amphitheatre. For the number of people going there on an average day, I think the expense is a bit fanciful.

As well as the lack of a cycle path on Cheltenham Road, when cycling in from Stratton it is a nuisance that Gloucester Street is a one way street, and so a cyclist should make a detour via the Outdoor Swimming Pool, or along the pavement on Abbey Way. We need far more cycle paths to other housing estates too - the housing estates on the London Road, and down to Siddington. Any alteration to parking and cycling routes affects people living outside the town centre, and they need to be consulted.

One of my friends lived in The Mead. When he left our house in Stratton Heights, he had to go all the way down Lewis Lane to get home, as he could no longer go down Dollar St and turn right into Castle Street. If Lewis Lane is closed to cars, please make it convenient to drive to Park Street and the Mead. It would use a lot or extra fuel to have to go round via the Tesco roundabout.