Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 556 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 Council is 9 members.
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Tristan Wilkinson, Councillor Helen Mansilla, Councillor Tony Dale and Councillor Andrew Maclean. It was noted that the Chief Executive had received Councillor Chris Twells’ resignation on 19 March 2025.
|
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. In relation to Agenda item 9 The Pay Policy Statement it was noted that if a Member wished to raise pay for specific officer posts, proceedings would be paused for the officer(s) concerned to leave the room if necessary. |
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 24 February 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: Council considered the minutes of the previous Council meeting held on 24 February 2025.
Councillor Blomefield reminded Councillor Joe Harris that she was waiting for a written answer to her question from a previous meeting. An answer was promised.
There were no amendments.
Councillor Evemy proposed the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, the proposal was seconded by Councillor Fowles, put to a vote and agreed by Council.
RESOLVED that the minutes are accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting of 24 February 2025.
Voting Record: For 26, Against 0, Abstain 3
|
|||||||||
|
Announcements from the Chair, Leader or Chief Executive To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Council, the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive. Additional documents: Minutes: Chair’s Announcements The Chair noted the sad passing of Officer Daisy Catterall, expressing condolences to her family and friends.
The Unsung Heroes Awards were then announced, with three awards being noted for March.
The Chair encouraged more community nominations and thanked all award recipients.
As this was Councillor Ind's final meeting as Chair, she reflected on representing Tetbury East and Rural as an Independent District Councillor and thanked residents and officers for putting their trust in her as well as fellow Councillors for supporting her in the role of Councillor and Chair. The importance of local voices in devolution discussions was emphasised, and councillors' role in ensuring those voices were heard was highlighted.
The Chair shared a personal story of early political engagement and thanked Councillor Joe Harris for his leadership and encouragement.
Tewkesbury Borough Mayor’s Charity Concert, the Annual Legal Service for the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire and the Royal Society of Saint George and Cotswold Homes and Interiors Festival were mentioned as being the last official engagements that Councillor Ind would have the honour of attending in her capacity as Chair of the Council.
Gratitude was also expressed to family and colleagues for their support over two years as Chair. And finally, the Chair encouraged young people to believe that anything is possible, to pursue their ambitions and really make a difference.
Leader’s announcements The Leader began by thanking the Chair on behalf of the Council for her service, praising her fairness and dedication to both Tetbury and the wider Cotswolds. He also congratulated the three Unsung Heroes award recipients, recognising their vital contributions to the community and highlighting the importance of the voluntary sector in supporting local services.
Attention was drawn to the recently adopted LIFT Scheme, helping residents access benefits and welfare entitlements. It was noted that nearly £1.3 million had been distributed to older people struggling with costs. He thanked Councillor Bloomer and the Revenues and Benefits team for their efforts in implementing the scheme.
The Leader then spoke about the tragic passing of Daisy Catterall at just 25. He reflected on her positive attitude, dedication to her role, and the impact of her loss on colleagues and the community. He shared a personal memory of their last conversation and a minute's silence was held in her honour.
Chief Executive's announcements The Chief Executive echoed condolences to Daisy Catterall’s family and colleagues, highlighting her dedication and positive impact. The well-attended memorial service at Bingham Hall and the daisy pin badges worn in her honour were mentioned.
The Chief Executive thanked the Chair for her leadership and also acknowledged Councillor ... view the full minutes text for item 89. |
|||||||||
|
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 Council’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 Chair 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: No public questions were received.
|
|||||||||
|
A Member of the Council may ask the Chair, the Leader, a Cabinet Member or the Chair of any Committee 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 Chair 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.
The following questions were submitted prior to the publication of the agenda:
Question 1: Councillor Blomefield to Councillor Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Despite increasingly wet weather, this country faces growing water shortages making it essential to better conserve this precious resource. Currently, per capita water consumption is approximately 150 litres per day but could be reduced to 100 litres by using new technology, like Danish Flowloop and Dutch Hydroloop shower systems, as well as rainwater harvesting. In Belgium, where rainwater harvesting is mandatory, the water is used for laundry and toilets. New properties are now fitted with water meters, even better are smart meters which offer live usage tracking and leak detection—particularly important since 30% of leaks occur within properties. Reducing mains water consumption and increasing rainwater harvesting would not only help the environment but also lessen the load on the sewage system, reducing overflows into rivers and onto streets during heavy rainfall. Given this, can the council provide an update on the progress and actions taken in response to Cllr Judd’s motion on Grey Water, approved in September 2023? Additionally, what steps is CDC taking to encourage water-saving plumbing fixtures, smart water meters, and rainwater harvesting systems in all new homes?
Question 2: Councillor Stowe to Councillor Harris, Leader of the Council Has CDC stopped installing new street signs?
Question 3: Councillor Daryl Corps to Councillor Juliet Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Many new, unadopted housing developments in the district are experiencing ongoing and often drawn-out problems with management companies regarding open spaces on new developments. These include the quality of the maintenance work carried out and the lack of transparency over charges which can change every year and are unlimited. Stratford-on-Avon District Council have adopted a new “Open Space Supplementary Planning Document” whereby all future Public Open Space as part of ... view the full agenda text for item 91. Additional documents: Minutes: Member questions, supplementary questions and responses can be found in Annex A attached. |
|||||||||
|
Publica Transition Plan - Phase 2 Purpose To consider the document Publica Transition: A Plan for Phase 2 of Council Services (“Phase 2 Transition Plan”), to note its contents and to approve the recommendations therein.
Recommendations That Council resolves to:
Additional documents: Minutes: Purpose The purpose of the report was to consider the document ‘Publica Transition: A Plan for Phase 2 of Council Services’, known as Phase 2 Transition Plan, to note its contents and to approve the recommendations therein.
Councillor Harris, Leader of the Council, introduced the report, summarised its key points, and explained the purpose of the transition: to create leaner, more efficient services and improve staff management for better services to residents. He acknowledged the challenges of Phase 1 but stated that the transition had been well managed by the senior management team. Phase 2 was noted as being another step on the journey.
The Chief Executive then spoke to the detailed Phase 2 transition plan. Key lessons from Phase 1 had helped refine the approach, including insights from a staff engagement survey. Feedback from the 75 transferred staff was largely positive.
Phase 2 was expected to be more complex due to fragmented roles requiring careful restructuring. It was noted that HR would lead the transition process, ensuring smooth staff engagement.
The Phase 2 transition prioritised high-spend and politically significant service areas, including:
The report presented outline costs and processes, mirroring the approach taken in Phase 1, with Phase 2 focused on improving service delivery and securing council autonomy.
The resolution was formally moved and opened for questions.
Straight Through Processing (STP) was clarified as referring to a streamlined approach to enabling decisions and actions to be executed directly without requiring multiple levels of approval or intervention from external entities. In the context of Phase 2, STP would allow direct execution of decisions, removing external approvals, reducing delays, and ensuring Council autonomy.
The notion of a ‘local employee’ was also clarified. It was noted that this terminology referred to staff who lived within or near the Council’s jurisdiction. This approach aligned with Council priorities, strengthened community ties, and supported sustainability by reducing commutes.
Councillor Evemy seconded the report and reserved the right to speak.
The Chair then moved to the debate on the resolution.
Members of the Conservative Group raised concerns about the transition process, predicting that both costs and risks would escalate. They acknowledged the potential benefits of bringing some services back in-house but urged that these benefits be weighed against the financial impact and the risks of the process, which would ultimately fall on taxpayers. They urged a pause in the process for risk assessment and cost estimation. They noted that the Phase 1 transition cost had significantly exceeded estimates, with the additional costs for delivering services outside of Publica projected to be £750,000 per year, five times the original estimate in the Human Engine report. The additional costs of Phase 2 were deemed unjustifiable, due to ongoing Phase 1 issues. It was noted that there was a sense that Phase 1 had been rushed and had lacked a detailed business case and proper due diligence. It was mooted that the main goals of the Phase ... view the full minutes text for item 92.
|
|||||||||
|
Community Governance Review - Upper Rissington Purpose To approve the final recommendation of the Community Governance Review for Upper Rissington.
Recomendations That Council resolves to:
Additional documents: Minutes: Purpose To approve the final recommendation of the Community Governance Review for Upper Rissington.
Councillor Joe Harris introduced the report, which proposed the transfer of land from Great Rissington Parish to Upper Rissington Parish through a change in parish boundaries.
The Council reviewed a proposal to amend parish boundaries between Upper and Great Rissington. Upper Rissington Parish Council had built and maintained a skate park located in Great Rissington which was primarily used by Upper Rissington residents. Following a consultation with no objections, members supported transferring the land to Upper Rissington.
The Chair then moved to the vote on the final recommendations of the Community Governance Review for Upper Rissington. The resolution was proposed by Councillor Joe Harris and seconded by Councillor Clare Turner.
Voting record: For 28, Against 0, Abstain 0.
|
|||||||||
|
Pay Policy Statement 2025 (as 9) Purpose To consider the Council’s Pay Policy Statement for 2025/26.
Recommendation That Council resolves to: 1. Approve the Pay Policy Statement for 2025/26. Additional documents: Minutes: Before commencing item number 9 the Chair asked if any members present wished to discuss individual officer terms, which would require the officers concerned to leave the room. No such requests were made, and the discussion proceeded.
The purpose of the report was to consider the Council’s Pay Policy Statement for 2025/6. Councillor Joe Harris introduced the report and asked John Llewellyn, Business Manager for Human Resources, to summarise the content and outline any changes.
The Council reviewed the amended pay policy statement, which included officer pay bandings and a commitment to the living wage. It was noted that if approved, the statement would be published on the Council website.
A question was raised about pensions, and officers confirmed that pension details could be included in future statements.
The Chair then moved to the vote on the Council’s Pay Policy Statement for 2025/6 .The resolution was proposed by Councillor Joe Harris and seconded by Councillor Mike Evemy.
Voting record: For 28, Against 0, Abstain1.
|
|||||||||
|
Amendments to the Constitution - Report of the Constitution Working Group (March 2025) Purpose To consider proposals from the Constitution Working Group for amendments to the Constitution.
Recommendations That Council resolves to:
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair requested that Council consider proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution from the Constitution Working Group. Given the complexity of the five topics, each item would be introduced separately before a decision was taken about whether the items would be voted on individually or en-bloc.
The item was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, who stated that the proposed changes had been discussed thoroughly at the Constitution Working Group, and thanked group members for their work and consideration.
The first amendment discussed was the removal of some words from paragraph 4.18 of Part D6: Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules. The words were to be removed as they were no longer applicable.
The second amendment suggested was around the inclusion of a Webcasting Protocol. The protocol was introduced as a guide to good practice in order to ensure a good experience for people following meetings remotely. Support for the protocol was encouraged.
The third item amendment was around questions at Cabinet and in Committees and was aimed at tidying up and clarifying the process.
The fourth amendment considered was Contract Rules. The Council’s contract rules had been updated to align with new procurement legislation. VAT was now included in contract values. And a new category had been introduced for goods and services between £30,000 and £60,000. It was noted that procedure rules changes primarily affected mid-range contracts.
Finally the Probity and Licensing Protocol was discussed. It was reported that the probability and licensing protocol had been reviewed, with changes aimed at improving readability and clarity. The updates reflected the responsibilities of the Planning and Licensing Committee and its subcommittee while eliminating duplication.
Questions from members were invited.
Councillor Fowles seconded the proposal and chose to speak. Appreciation was expressed for the working group and its chair for well-run meetings. It was confirmed that a lengthy discussion had taken place on webcast meetings, with members agreeing that, despite potential future government changes, maintaining physical meetings remained preferable for transparency and engagement.
The Chair then moved to the debate on the resolution. There was no debate. Members confirmed that they agreed to vote for the recommendations en-bloc rather than individually.
The Chair then moved to the vote on the proposed amendments to the Council's Constitution. The resolution was proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor David Fowles.
Voting record: For 28, Against 0, Abstain 0.
|
|||||||||
|
Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Purpose To note the work underway across Gloucestershire in response to the formal invitation received from Government to develop proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR).
Recommendation That Council resolves to: 1. Note the work taking place across Gloucestershire in response to the formal invitation from Government to develop proposals for Local Government Reorganisation 2. Note the Gloucestershire letter to Government on interim proposals. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of this report was to note the work underway across Gloucestershire in response to the formal invitation received from the Government to develop proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR).
Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council, introduced this item, which was for noting. It was reported that significant time and resources had been dedicated to finding a solution for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire, though no consensus had been reached. A letter, agreed upon by district and county council leaders, had been sent to the government outlining three potential proposals:
The letter signalled ongoing work without endorsing a preference. With upcoming elections, it was acknowledged that differing views might lead to multiple submissions, and while government ministers were monitoring the situation, no concrete plans had yet been finalised.
There were no questions for clarity.
Councillor Mike Evemy reserved his right to speak. The Chair moved to the debate.
The future of local government in Gloucestershire was seen as uncertain but full of potential. There was agreement that efforts should focus on delivering the best outcomes for the district and county. Three options for reorganisation were acknowledged, but no single one was officially endorsed.
|
|||||||||
|
Motion A: Farmers Motion In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12, the following Motion has been received:
Farmers Motion Proposer: Councillor Julia Judd Seconder: Councillor Joe Harris
This Council notes that we currently only produce 60% of the food that we need here in the UK. Food imports already outnumber exports by £33.2 billion. A reduction in the food that we produce will only increase our vulnerability to international factors outside our control - we have already felt this impact in the energy market.
This Council also notes that: · According to the NFU: 7,419 people are directly employed in agriculture in Gloucestershire, that’s 12.1% of the South West’s farm workers · Gross Output = £318 million, GVA = £128 million · Of the 85,397.1 Hectares of arable farmland, 63.2% (53,965.1Ha) is cereal crops, that’s 24.1% of Gloucestershire’s farmed area and 18% of all the South West’s cereal production. · The National Farmers Union calculates that 75% of commercial family farms will fall above the £1 million threshold across the UK. · Over the past 60 years the proportion of household income spent on food in the UK has halved, from 33% in 1957, 11.8% in 2022. Food prices have come down, farmers' income from food production has come down and supermarket profits have ballooned. · neither DEFRA, the Government’s own department, nor industry experts in the farming sector were consulted before the chancellor made her announcement. DEFRA did not even know about the decision until after the chancellor’s announcement.
This Council believes that · proper consultation with farmers and industry experts could have led to fairer and more appropriate solutions that are not detrimental to family farms or the wider industry. The changes were rushed out and have not been subject to due diligence or proper consideration. · If hard-pressed farmers are forced to sell their farms because they can’t afford to carry on due to a huge tax burden, the land is less likely to stay in food production. · Large farms are being bought by businesses so that they can take advantage of the 20% tax advantage, and small pockets of land which farmers sell off to cover tax burdens are often re-purposed for example dog walking fields, equestrian or amenity land such as re-wilding, but not put back into food production · Tax discount to businesses or individuals buying agricultural land to avoid tax should be abolished
This Council resolves to :
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair invited Councillor Julia Judd to speak as the proposer of the motion. Councillor Judd made the following points:
The recommendation of the motion was that
Councillor Theyer then spoke as seconder of the motion and made the following points, emphasising that the Inheritance Tax (IHT) on farmers was unworkable and financially unsustainable.
Councillor Harris spoke to the proposed IHG changes and agreed that they could threaten the existence of family farms and rural communities. In response, the speaker moved a motion to:
This approach aimed to ensure the Council's ... view the full minutes text for item 97.
|
|||||||||
|
Next meeting The next meeting of Council will be held on 21 May 2025 at 6.00 pm. Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted that the 21 May 2025 Annual Council meeting would start at 6pm. |
Carried