LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
Cotswold District Council
GSS E07000079 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only district councils with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 35 | 88.6% | 100.0% |
| Minor | 280 | 82.9% | 80.6% |
| Other | 970 | 91.9% | — |
| of which householder | 611 | 92.1% | 91.8% |
Delivery below 75%: the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to housing applications here. A material point for any housing proposal.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 1,260 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 50 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=1,260) | Validated (n=1,260) | Decided (n=1,260) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 21.3% | 17.7% | 12.3% | |||
| Tue | 19.2% | 20.2% | 18.9% | |||
| Wed | 20.7% | 21.4% | 23.8% | |||
| Thu | 19.7% | 20.1% | 27.2% | |||
| Fri | 18.3% | 17.9% | 17.8% | |||
| Sat | 0.2% | 2.6% | 0% | |||
| Sun | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | 438 | 37% | 10% | 53% | 107 |
| Trees | 391 | 79% | 8% | 13% | 30 |
| Conditions | 173 | 64% | 8% | 28% | 68 |
| Heritage | 114 | 28% | 10% | 62% | 103 |
| Amendment | 60 | 72% | 8% | 20% | 25 |
| Outline | 39 | 46% | 15% | 38% | 55 |
| Other | 31 | 61% | 32% | 6% | 26 |
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Approval rate | Average days | Late | Mostly handles | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Hawes | 7 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 86% | 45 | — | Compliance with conditions application (3) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Graham Smith | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0% | 54 | — | Full Application (2) | Apr 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| James Tyson | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 4 | — | Dead/Dangerous (2) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Mark Fisher | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 24 | — | Footpath Order consultation from County (2) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Peter Morgan | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0% | 46 | — | Full Application (1) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Tracey Birch | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 33% | 34 | — | Cert of Lawful Proposed Use or Devt (2) | Jun 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Ben Bendall | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 11 | — | Non-material amendment (2) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Emily Edge | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 53 | — | Full Application (1) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Francesca Ind | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 17 | — | Works to trees in conservation areas (2) | Sep 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Justin Hobbs | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 46 | — | Works to trees with a TPO (2) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Rachael Adams | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 104 | — | Permission in Principle (2) | Mar 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Andrew Moody | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 45 | — | Permission in Principle (1) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Approval rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. Late is the share decided after the published determination target, shown only where we hold a target for at least five of that officer's decisions. "Mostly handles" is the application type they appear on most often. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual: a caseload of majors runs longer than one of householder applications. Click a name for the full officer profile.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Alasdair Jeffrey | 48 | 35 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 31 | Trees (48) | Jul 2021 – Sep 2026 |
| Mr Benjamin King | 25 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 36 | Trees (25) | Sep 2019 – Sep 2026 |
| Mr Ian Maslin | 21 | 13 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 92% | 131 | Full (11) | Sep 2019 – Aug 2026 |
| Mrs Claire Arnold | 14 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 26 | Trees (14) | Sep 2021 – Aug 2026 |
| Mr J Phillips | 13 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 123 | Conditions (5) | Oct 2019 – Jul 2026 |
| Ms Laura Davis | 13 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 36 | Trees (12) | Aug 2021 – Oct 2026 |
| Mr Matthew Edwards | 12 | 12 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 92 | Full (6) | Sep 2021 – Aug 2026 |
| Mrs Aimee Drake | 12 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 27 | Trees (12) | May 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Matt Chadwick | 11 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 127 | Conditions (4) | Jun 2025 – Sep 2026 |
| Mr Andrew Pywell | 11 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 152 | Full (6) | Oct 2019 – Sep 2026 |
| Mr Alan Tompson | 11 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 46 | Full (10) | Feb 2023 – Aug 2026 |
| Andrew Miles | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 115 | Full (5) | Sep 2019 – Jun 2023 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Local Plan 2011-2031
Adoption date not published in the national register · plan period 2011-01-01–2031-01-01
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.