Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 558 KBVenue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. The quorum for Cabinet is 3 members.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no apologies for absence, but it was noted that Councillor Tony Dale attended remotely and contributed to the discussion of the items on the agenda. The Member was not present for the purposes of quorum or voting and therefore took no part in the decisions made. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Decision: There were no declarations of interest from Members or officers present. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest from Members or officers present. |
|||||||||
|
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of Cabinet held on 16 April 2026. Additional documents: Decision: The purpose of this item was to consider the minutes of Cabinet held on 16 April 2026.
It was noted that the spelling of Chipping Campden needed correcting under item 224 Schedule of Decisions. The Chief Executive also requested that her apologies be noted in the minutes.
The recommendation to approve the amended minutes was proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Andrea Pellegram.
RESOLVED that the amended minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 16 April 2026 be approved as a correct record.
Voting record: 6 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention. Councillor Evans abstained, having not been present at the meeting of Cabinet on 16 April 2026. Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote.
Minutes: The purpose of this item was to consider the minutes of Cabinet held on 16 April 2026.
It was noted that the spelling of Chipping Campden needed correcting under item 224 Schedule of Decisions. The Chief Executive also requested that her apologies be noted in the minutes.
The recommendation to approve the amended minutes was proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Andrea Pellegram.
Voting record: 6 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention. Councillor Evans abstained, having not been present at the meeting of Cabinet on 16 April 2026. Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote.
|
|||||||||
|
Leader's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Leader of the Council. Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader welcomed Councillor Paul Evans, ward member for The Beeches, to his inaugural meeting of Cabinet.
There were no other announcements from the Leader. |
|||||||||
|
Public Questions To deal with questions from the public within the open forum question and answer session of fifteen minutes in total. Questions from each member of the public should be no longer than one minute 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. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||||
|
Member Questions No Member Questions have been submitted prior to the publication of the agenda.
A Member of the Council may ask the Leader or a Cabinet Member a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Cotswold District. A maximum period of fifteen minutes shall be allowed at any such meeting for Member questions.
A Member may only ask a question if: a) the question has been delivered in writing or by electronic mail to the Chief Executive no later than 5.00 p.m. on the working day before the day of the meeting; or b) the question relates to an urgent matter, they have the consent of the Leader to whom the question is to be put and the content of the question is given to the Chief Executive by 9.30 a.m. on the day of the meeting.
An answer 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. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no member questions. |
|||||||||
|
Schedule of Decisions taken by the Leader of the Council and/or Individual Cabinet Members To note the decisions taken by the Leader and/or Individual Cabinet Members since the publication of the Agenda for Cabinet 5 March 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: No delegated decisions had been taken by the Leader and/or Individual Cabinet Members since the publication of the agenda for Cabinet 16 April 2026.
|
|||||||||
|
Issue(s) Arising from Overview and Scrutiny and/or Audit and Governance To receive any recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to consider any matters raised by the Audit and Governance Committee.
Available after O&S 1 June. Additional documents: Minutes: Cabinet noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had met earlier in the week and had pre-scrutinised the following items: · Local Government Reorganisation – Structural Changes Order · Waste and Environment – Service Design options · Asset Management – Out-of-District Investment Properties
As a result of this scrutiny recommendations were made. The recommendations and the Cabinet’s response are set out in Annex to this item.
The Leader thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny and confirmed that its recommendations would be referenced during consideration of the relevant agenda items.
|
|||||||||
|
Waste and Environment - Service Design Options Purpose This report sets out a package of waste and recycling service design options to support a cohesive, compliant, and efficient approach to service delivery. It enables Cabinet to consider the removal of some services alongside the introduction and simplification of others, recognising that reductions in recycling income can be mitigated by reduced operating costs and operational efficiencies.
The report describes the rationale, impacts and risks associated with: · demobilising the Council-provided bring bank service; · introducing kerbside collections of Plastic Bags and Wrapping in line with Simpler Recycling requirements, including the proposed approach to resident presentation of material; and · moving to the combined collection of paper and card to simplify collections and improve operational resilience.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Agree to the withdrawal of the bring bank service. 2. Agree to the proposed approach for how residents will present the new recyclable plastics at the kerbside (i.e. in a tied, self-supplied, single-use sack). 3. Agree to a reduction in the size of the standard issue refuse bin (from 180 litre to 140 litre) on a replacement/phased basis. 4. Agree to the new arrangement for the combined collection of paper and card. 5. Notes the financial implications. 6. Grant delegated authority to the Director of Communities and Place in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment & Regulatory Services to take the required steps to implement the recommendations above. In terms of timeline: The withdrawal of the bring sites would take place within this financial year, with savings realised at the start of next year; The collection of additional plastics (plastic bags and wrapping) is planned in line with the requirement of Simpler Recycling i.e. to be in place by 1 April 2027. The reduction in the standard bin size would occur at the same time; A shift to mixing paper and card would occur when replacement recycling vehicles start to be used on the collection services. Additional documents:
Decision: The purpose of the item was to set out a package of waste and recycling service design options to support a cohesive, compliant, and efficient approach to service delivery. The report had been produced to enable Cabinet to consider the removal of some services alongside the introduction and simplification of others, recognising that reductions in recycling income can be mitigated by reduced operating costs and operational efficiencies.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, introduced the report and explained that the proposed changes were required to inform the specification of the Council's new waste collection vehicles and to align future service provision with legislative changes, including the introduction of Simpler Recycling requirements from 1 April 2027.
Cabinet was advised that the recommendations would remove the remaining Bring Bank sites across the district, as the materials collected at those sites were now largely collected through the kerbside recycling service. The changes would reduce operational costs, address issues associated with fly-tipping and misuse of facilities, and were not expected to adversely affect residents' ability to recycle.
The Cabinet Member further explained that the Council proposed to introduce a collection service for plastic bags and wrapping from April 2027 without issuing additional containers initially, as modelling indicated that uptake would be limited in the early stages. The arrangements would be monitored and reviewed alongside approaches adopted by other Gloucestershire authorities.
Cabinet was also advised that paper and card collections would be combined into a single recycling stream to simplify the service for residents and reflect changes in the composition of recyclable materials. In addition, it was proposed that the standard residual waste bin size for new properties and replacement bins would be reduced from 180 litres to 140 litres, reflecting the district's strong recycling performance. Existing bins would not be replaced as part of this change. Reference was made to comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had emphasised the importance of a comprehensive communications plan to support residents through the changes and to minimise any unintended consequences, particularly following the removal of Bring Bank facilities.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Andrea Pellegram and seconded by Councillor Juliet Layton.
Cabinet RESOLVED to: 1. Agree to the withdrawal of the Bring Bank service. 2. Agree to the proposed approach for how residents would present the new recyclable plastics at the kerbside (i.e. in a tied, self-supplied, single-use sack). 3. Agree to a reduction in the size of the standard issue refuse bin (from 180 litre to 140 litre) on a replacement/ phased basis. 4. Agree to the new arrangement for the combined collection of paper and card. 5. Note the financial implications. 6. Grant delegated authority to the Director of Communities and Place in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment & Regulatory Services to take the required steps to implement the recommendations above.
Voting record: 7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions. Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote. Minutes: The purpose of the item was to set out a package of waste and recycling service design options to support a cohesive, compliant, and efficient approach to service delivery. The report had been produced to enable Cabinet to consider the removal of some services alongside the introduction and simplification of others, recognising that reductions in recycling income can be mitigated by reduced operating costs and operational efficiencies.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, introduced the report and explained that the proposed changes were required to inform the specification of the Council's new waste collection vehicles. They would represent a significant investment by the authority, and align future service provision with legislative changes, including the introduction of Simpler Recycling requirements from 1 April 2027. She noted that the proposals also provided an opportunity to review a number of legacy service arrangements and ensure that the Council's waste and recycling services remained efficient, sustainable and cost-effective.
Cabinet was advised that the recommendations would remove the remaining Bring Bank sites across the district, as the materials collected at those sites were now largely collected through the kerbside recycling service. The changes would reduce operational costs, address issues associated with fly-tipping and misuse of facilities, and were not expected to adversely affect residents' ability to recycle.
The Cabinet Member further explained that the Council proposed to introduce a collection service for plastic bags and wrapping from April 2027 in response to new legislative requirements. It was proposed that no additional containers would be issued initially, as modelling indicated that uptake would be limited in the early stages and issuing containers to all households could create unnecessary waste. The arrangements would be monitored and reviewed alongside approaches adopted by other Gloucestershire authorities.
Cabinet was also advised that paper and card collections would be combined into a single recycling stream to simplify the service for residents and reflect changes in the composition of recyclable materials, particularly the increasing proportion of cardboard within the waste stream. The changes would initially utilise the Council's existing recycling containers and would not result in additional collection costs.
In addition, it was proposed that the standard residual waste bin size for new properties and replacement bins would be reduced from 180 litres to 140 litres, reflecting the district's strong recycling performance and reduced reliance on residual waste capacity. Existing bins would not be replaced as part of this change.
Reference was made to comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had emphasised the importance of a comprehensive communications plan to support residents through the changes, particularly in relation to the introduction of plastic bags and wrapping collections and the removal of Bring Bank facilities. The Committee had also highlighted the need to minimise any unintended consequences and ensure that residents were aware of the alternative recycling options available.
There were no questions for clarity, so the chair moved to the debate. Members debated the item and made the following points:
· Members welcomed the report and commended ... view the full minutes text for item 246.
|
|||||||||
|
Asset Management - Abberley House/ Corinium Museum Roof Repair Project Purpose To update Cabinet on the Abberley House Roof Repair Project and the seek delegated authority to proceed with the works post the procurement process.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Agree that repair work to the roof is to be expedited 2. Delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, to receive quotations for the repair work and to instruct work to be carried out and to deal with minor matters arising during the works. Additional documents:
Decision: The purpose of the item was to update the Cabinet on the Abberley House Roof Repair Project and the seek delegated authority to proceed with the works post the procurement process.
Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. Cabinet was asked to approve the expediting of repair works to the roof of Abberley House, which houses the Corinium Museum, and to delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, to obtain quotations, appoint contractors and deal with minor matters arising during the course of the works.
The Cabinet Member explained that officers had identified funding that was expected to be sufficient to undertake the required repairs. He noted the importance of the Corinium Museum to the district and the longstanding cross-party support for investment in the museum and its facilities. Reference was made to the need to protect the historic fabric of Abberley House as a listed building and to ensure that the property remained weatherproof and fit for purpose.
Cabinet was advised that the specialist nature of the building and its roof presented particular challenges. However, confidence was expressed that suitably experienced contractors could be secured, given the availability of specialist heritage construction expertise within the district.
In supporting the proposals, the Leader of the Council highlighted the Council's responsibilities as owner of the listed building and the importance of maintaining a watertight roof for the benefit of both the museum and other occupiers of the property. It was noted that further pre-construction investigations would consider whether the installation of solar panels could be accommodated as part of the project, subject to heritage and technical considerations.
Cabinet welcomed the progress made by officers in bringing forward the proposals and supported the recommended approach to progressing the repair works.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Patrick Coleman and seconded by Councillor Paul Evans.
Cabinet RESOLVED to: 1. Agree that repair work to the roof should be expedited 2. Delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, to receive quotations for the repair work; to instruct work to be carried out; and to deal with minor matters arising during the works.
Voting record: 7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions. Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote. Minutes: The purpose of the item was to update the Cabinet on the Abberley House Roof Repair Project and the seek delegated authority to proceed with the works post the procurement process.
Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. Cabinet was asked to approve the expediting of repair works to the roof of Abberley House, home to the Corinium Museum, and to delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, to obtain quotations, appoint contractors and deal with minor matters arising during the course of the works.
The Cabinet Member explained that officers had identified funding that was expected to be sufficient to undertake the required repairs. He noted the importance of the Corinium Museum to the district and the longstanding cross-party support for investment in the museum and its facilities. Reference was made to the need to protect the historic fabric of Abberley House as a listed building and to ensure that the property remained weatherproof and fit for purpose.
Cabinet was advised that the specialist nature of the building and its roof presented particular challenges. However, confidence was expressed that suitably experienced contractors could be secured, given the availability of specialist heritage construction expertise within the district and the significant number of historic and listed buildings in the area.
In supporting the proposals, the Leader of the Council highlighted the Council's responsibilities as owner of the listed building and the importance of maintaining a watertight roof for the benefit of both the museum and other occupiers of the property. It was noted that the roof's complex design had contributed to the challenges in identifying the required repairs. The Leader also referred to further pre-construction investigations that would consider whether the installation of solar panels could be accommodated as part of the project, subject to heritage and technical considerations.
The Leader invited any questions for clarity and then moved to the debate. Members debated the item and made the following points:
· Members welcomed the progress made by officers in identifying the issues and bringing forward proposals to undertake the necessary repairs. · Support was expressed for the Council taking a proactive approach to maintaining its assets and protecting an important listed building and cultural facility. · Members emphasised the importance of ensuring that the repair works provided a long-term solution and addressed the underlying causes of the roof defects. · It was noted that investing in the repairs at this stage would help protect the building, reduce the risk of further deterioration and avoid potentially greater costs in the future. · Members welcomed the intention to explore opportunities for the installation of solar panels as part of the project, where this could be achieved without compromising the historic character of the building.
Having nothing more to add the recommendations were proposed by Councillor Patrick Coleman and seconded by Councillor Paul Evans.
Voting record: 7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions. Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote.
|
|||||||||
|
Local Government Reorganisation - Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order Purpose To outline the governance, legal framework, and key arrangements for the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order, and to seek Cabinet’s agreement to submit representations to Government on behalf of Cotswold District Council.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Consider representations to the questions set out by the ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) regarding Gloucestershire’s Structural Changes Order; 2. Delegate authority to the Leader of the Council to submit formal representations to MHCLG by their deadline of 16 June 2026. Additional documents:
Decision: The purpose of the item was to outline the governance, legal framework, and key arrangements for the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order, and to seek Cabinet’s agreement to submit representations to Government on behalf of Cotswold District Council.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the report and advised that the Government had invited Gloucestershire councils to make representations in response to a consultation on the proposed Structural Changes Order for local government reorganisation. These representations would be considered by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government when determining the final content of the Order.
Cabinet was informed that the consultation followed correspondence from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and sought views from Gloucestershire councils on a range of governance and implementation matters associated with the unitary authority proposals currently under consideration. It was noted that the Government would ultimately decide the future structure of local government in Gloucestershire, and that the Council’s submission would set out its formal views on the options presented.
It was further noted that the report set out the key milestones, timelines and governance requirements associated with the development of the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order following consultation on Local Government Reorganisation proposals. The report outlined the matters expected to be included within the Order, including arrangements for governance, elections, transition planning, implementation structures, electoral and warding arrangements, naming conventions, and the establishment of new authority structures.
The Leader outlined the proposed response, including comments on transitional governance arrangements, implementation structures, electoral and warding arrangements, naming conventions, and the operation of joint committees and shadow authorities. Particular reference was made to the Council’s support for the use of a “preparing authority” model should a single unitary authority be adopted, while recognising the importance of establishing a distinct culture and identity for any new council.
Cabinet noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter and that its comments had informed the proposed response. It was also noted that all the Gloucestershire councils were working within their existing published meeting schedules to consider the consultation questions from MHCLG on local government reorganisation. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel at Cotswold District Council had been the first group of members to publicly consider the issues, with other councils due to follow shortly.
It was explained that representations from all seven councils would be collated into a single submission. Where there was agreement, a unified position would be reflected; where differences existed across the proposals, these would be clearly identified along with the underlying rationale for differing views. The aim was to achieve as much consistency as possible across the county’s response, which would be submitted to Government by the deadline of 16 June 2026.
An amendment to the first recommendation was noted. The (amended) recommendations were proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor Tristan Wilkinson.
Cabinet RESOLVED to: 1. Endorse the Cabinet response document as the basis for its response to the questions set out by the Ministry ... view the full decision text for item 248. Minutes: The purpose of the item was to outline the governance, legal framework, and key arrangements for the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order, and to seek Cabinet’s agreement to submit representations to Government on behalf of Cotswold District Council.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the report and advised that Gloucestershire councils had received a formal request from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) seeking representations on the proposed Structural Changes Order relating to local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire. These representations would inform the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in determining the final content of the Order.
Cabinet was advised that the consultation had been issued shortly before the expected decision on the preferred reorganisation model and that responses were required by 16 June 2026, allowing a limited period for consideration. Members noted that the Government’s decision on the preferred model for local government in Gloucestershire was expected later in the summer.
The consultation sought views on a range of implementation matters, including governance arrangements, transitional structures, electoral and warding patterns, naming conventions, and the operation of joint committees and shadow or preparatory authorities.
The report set out the principal options under consideration, including: a single unitary authority for Gloucestershire; an east–west split; and a Greater Gloucester and residual Gloucestershire. It also outlined governance mechanisms, including the choice between a “preparing authority” model (formerly continuing authority) and a shadow authority model.
The Leader explained that, following further consideration since the original business case, the Council’s proposed response supported the “preparing authority” model on the basis that it provided a simpler transitional arrangement, avoided duplication of councillor structures, and reduced estimated additional costs of approximately £600,000–£700,000 compared with a shadow authority approach. It was acknowledged, however, that this model presented challenges in establishing a distinct organisational culture for any new authority, which would need to be addressed as a priority.
Cabinet noted that Overview and Scrutiny had considered the matter and that its comments had been incorporated into the draft response. Gloucestershire councils were working within existing meeting schedules to prepare responses to the consultation and submissions would be collated into a single county-wide representation, with areas of agreement reflected as a shared position and areas of divergence clearly identified with supporting rationale.
It was also noted that, subject to Government approval, joint implementation arrangements would be established in advance of legislation being enacted, including joint committees or implementation executives comprising representatives of county and district councils.
There were no questions for clarity, so the Leader moved to the debate.
Members debated the report and raised the following points:
· The constrained timescale for response and limited opportunity for wider engagement, including with town and parish councils. · That, while consultative, final decisions rested with central Government, and the importance of ensuring local views were clearly represented. · Concerns regarding the pace of the process and potential long-term implications for local governance and service delivery. · The importance of sustainable and effective governance structures, with reference to ... view the full minutes text for item 248.
|
|||||||||
|
Asset Management - Out-of-District Investment Properties Purpose To seek Cabinet’s approval to pursue options for the disposal of out of district Investment property(ies).
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Approve the recommendation to actively market all 3 out of district investment properties for disposal. 2. Delegate to the Strategic Head of Housing, Property and Assets to progress negotiations with support from the Assistant Director of Legal Services.
Additional documents: Decision: The purpose of the item was to seek Cabinet's approval to pursue options for the disposal of out-of-district investment properties.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy stated that the public should not be excluded from consideration of the item and that it would be taken in open session. Members were reminded that exempt annexes were included in the agenda, but that discussion should be limited to the contents of the main report only.
It was noted that the item had previously been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had met in private session, it was further noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had indicated support in principle for the recommendations.
Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, introduced the report in relation to the Council’s three out-of-district investment properties, which were acquired in 2010 following funding approval in 2009 to generate a stable rental income stream. It was noted that the properties comprised retail assets within the commercial sector and that their financial performance had declined in recent years. Reference was made to wider market conditions, including structural changes within the retail sector following the COVID-19 pandemic and evolving consumer behaviour, which had contributed to reduced returns and increased risk exposure. It was further noted that this reduced level of income had already been reflected within the Council’s medium-term financial planning.
It was reported that, having regard to financial performance, prevailing market conditions, and the Council’s Asset Management Strategy, the continued holding of the assets would result in reduced ongoing revenue income and increased exposure to risk, and that their disposal was therefore considered appropriate. In addition, it was noted that the proposed approach could assist in simplifying the Council’s asset position in the context of potential local government reorganisation.
The report therefore sought Cabinet approval to actively market the properties for disposal in line with the Council’s Asset Management Strategy.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Patrick Coleman and seconded by Councillor Mike Evemy.
Cabinet RESOLVED to: 1. Approve the recommendation to actively market all three out-of-district investment properties for disposal. 2. Delegate to the Strategic Head of Housing, Property and Assets to progress negotiations with support from the Assistant Director – Legal Services.
Voting record: 7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions. Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote.
Minutes: The purpose of the item was to seek Cabinet's approval to pursue options for the disposal of out-of-district investment properties.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy stated that the public should not be excluded from consideration of the item and that it would be taken in open session. Members were reminded that exempt annexes were included in the agenda, but that discussion should be limited to the contents of the main report only.
It was noted that the item had previously been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had met in private session, and members of the committee had indicated support in principle for the recommendations.
Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, introduced the report in relation to the Council’s three out-of-district investment properties, which were acquired in 2010 following funding approval in 2009 to generate a stable rental income stream. The properties comprised retail assets within the commercial sector and that their financial performance had declined in recent years. Reference was made to wider market conditions, including structural changes within the retail sector following the COVID-19 pandemic and evolving consumer behaviour, which had contributed to reduced returns and increased risk exposure. This reduced level of income had already been reflected within the Council’s medium-term financial planning.
It was reported that, in light of reduced income, increased risk exposure, and prevailing market conditions, continued retention of the assets would be likely to generate declining returns. Disposal was therefore considered appropriate in accordance with the Council’s Asset Management Strategy. The disposal would also contribute, in a limited way, to simplifying the Council’s asset base in the context of potential local government reorganisation.
It was further noted that officers had undertaken detailed work to assess asset performance and market conditions, including indicative valuations and rental income trends.
Cabinet was advised that the proposal was to actively market the properties for disposal, rather than commit to sale, with any offers received to be assessed through the Council’s established governance and decision-making processes.
The Leader moved to the debate and members raised the following points:
· Members highlighted the constrained and volatile nature of the retail property market and the associated financial risks, including exposure to void periods and ongoing maintenance liabilities. · It was noted that recent performance demonstrated declining net income, with income reducing from approximately £300,000 per annum at acquisition to around £188,000 in the current year. · Members emphasised that the Council should focus on its core service delivery responsibilities rather than retaining a geographically dispersed investment property portfolio. · It was suggested that market conditions provided an appropriate opportunity to test investor appetite for disposal, noting that any decision to proceed would be subject to offers received and further formal approvals. · Members recognised the work undertaken by officers in assessing valuations, income projections, and market conditions to support decision-making.
The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that recent financial performance had shown marginal or negative net returns in prior years, and that projected income remained dependent on full occupancy and ... view the full minutes text for item 249.
|
|||||||||
|
Matters exempt from publication If Cabinet wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any of the items on the exempt from publication part of the agenda, it will be necessary for Cabinet to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 on the grounds that their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Cabinet may maintain the exemption if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Recommendation That, in accordance with Regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 12 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 as per of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
Additional documents: Decision: Cabinet did not enter private session for Agenda Item 12, Asset Management; Out-of-District Investment Properties and did not discuss the exempt annex. Minutes: Cabinet did not enter private session for Agenda Item 12, Asset Management; Out-of-District Investment Properties and did not discuss the exempt annex. |
|||||||||
|
Next Meeting Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting of Cabinet was confirmed as 1 July 2026 at 6.00pm. |
Carried