Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 671 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 David Cunningham and Councillor Tony Slater. |
|||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 26 November 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: Council considered the minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 November 2025.
Councillor Evemy proposed the approval of the minutes. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Stowe, put to the vote and agreed by Council.
RESOLVED that the minutes of Full Council 26 November 2025 were approved as a true and accurate record.
Voting record: 26 For, 0 Against, 4 Abstentions.
|
|||||||||
|
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 drew members’ attention to upcoming training and briefings. Treasury management training, provided by Arlingclose, had been scheduled for 27 January at 2:00 pm in the Chamber, prior to the Audit and Governance Committee meeting, and was open to all members. An all-member budget briefing had been scheduled via Teams for 10 February 2026 at 6:00 pm, ahead of the Council budget meeting on 23rd February 2026 at 6:00 pm. Members were encouraged to attend.
The Chair highlighted that Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson would run the Cirencester 10k on 22 February 2026 for the Pied Piper Appeal, Gloucester Hospital’s charity. Members were encouraged to support her and sponsorship details were available via Democratic Services.
The Chair also informed members of the death of former Councillor Carol Topple, aged 90. She had moved to London, and her funeral had taken place in Putney. The Chair noted her long service and contributions to the Council and extended condolences to her family.
The Chair invited the Leader to speak.
Leader’s announcements: The Leader provided an update on Cabinet changes. Councillor Tony Dale had rejoined the Cabinet on 1 January 2026, taking over from Councillor Paul Hodgkinson. The Leader thanked Councillor Hodgkinson for his service and welcomed Councillor Dale back. Councillor Claire Bloomer had also stepped down from the Cabinet for personal reasons. The Leader acknowledged her work since May 2023, particularly her championing of the Low-Income Family Tracker programme.
Rather than appointing a new Cabinet member, Councillor Bloomer’s responsibilities were reallocated among existing members: Councillor Patrick Coleman assumed cost of living support; Councillor Tony Dale, safeguarding; Councillor Juliet Layton, refugees; and the Leader took on liaison with the third sector, diversity, inclusion, and young people. Responsibility for member development was handed from the Leader to the Deputy Leader, Councillor Layton. Democratic Services was requested to update the website and circulate the revised list of Cabinet members and portfolios, effective immediately.
It was noted that Councillor Andrea Pellegram had stepped down from the Local Plan Oversight Board, and Councillor Patrick Coleman had been appointed as her replacement.
The Leader welcomed the Government’s changes to inheritance tax for farmers, noting the Council’s work and correspondence with the Chancellor. While the threshold increase would provide relief to farmers in the Cotswolds, the Council would continue to press the government and engage with local MPs to provide clarity to those concerned. Concerns remained regarding housing targets imposed by the government. Feedback from public consultations, town and parish councils, and residents indicated strong opposition to the government’s targets, and the Leader confirmed the Council would share the results of the consultation with government, ensure ministers understood the serious consequences of the Council having to meet an excessive housing target, and committed to fight for its reduction while planning for genuinely affordable homes where needed.
Finally, the Leader updated members on local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire. A recent call with the Local Government Minister, officials, and over 300 council leaders and chief executives confirmed that seven-week ... view the full minutes text for item 63. |
|||||||||
|
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: There were two public questions:
Question 1 Councillor Alison Tighe, Mayor of Stow-on-the-Wold, was invited to speak.
Councillor Tighe stated that she had recently written to Cotswold District Council to express concerns regarding the Local Plan update. Stow-on-the-Wold wished to ensure that the challenges facing the town were fully recognised and addressed through the Local Plan update. Her specific question was: would the Local Plan provide clear and deliverable solutions to address housing needs, particularly the shortage of affordable and social housing, given that the consultation document identified symptoms of decline but did not propose specific remedies to reverse that decline, and that potential development sites within the town were limited in scale?
Councillor Evemy thanked Alison Tighe for her correspondence and for raising concerns regarding Stow-on-the-Wold, noting that similar points had also been raised by the ward member, Councillor Neill. He advised that, although the Regulation 18 consultation had concluded, significant work was ongoing ahead of Regulation 19, including the assessment of sites that may have become available or been put forward. He offered to arrange a meeting with Alison Tighe, the Director of Communities and Place, Councillor Neill and other relevant representatives to discuss the specific challenges facing Stow-on-the-Wold and to help inform the next stage of the Local Plan process.
Councillor Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning added that the housing need in Stow-on-the-Wold was well understood within her portfolio and was raised regularly by ward members. She explained that the Local Plan must work within the constraints of available sites but confirmed that social housing was being actively considered and that smaller sites could be appropriate for such provision, notwithstanding land ownership constraints. Councillor Layton confirmed she would also be willing to attend the proposed meeting and reiterated the Council’s awareness of the issues facing the town and its commitment to addressing them where possible.
Councillor Tighe then asked a supplementary question, asking whether the Council would bring forward solutions to address parking pressures in Stow-on-the-Wold, noting limited off-street parking in the town centre, the recent introduction of time limits at the Tesco car park, and longstanding requests for a parking review.
Councillor Tony Dale, Cabinet Member for Health, Culture and Visitor Experience, thanked the speaker for the question and acknowledged the concerns raised regarding parking in Stow-on-the-Wold. He noted that a district-wide parking strategy had been developed over the past two years and was published on the Council’s website. He explained that any substantial development within the Local Plan would inform updates to the parking strategy and that the Council would work with local town councillors to identify suitable solutions, including potential additional parking provision. Councillor Dale offered reassurance that the Council remained committed to maintaining and investing in parking to support appropriate travel where alternatives such as walking or cycling were not feasible.
Question 2 The speaker introduced herself as Mary Cobbett, a licensed Citizens Advice benefit advisor, also serving both the Cirencester alms houses and the Cirencester Pantry. The public ... view the full minutes text for item 64. |
|||||||||
|
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.
Question 1: Cllr Julia Judd to Cllr Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services. I regularly receive emails from residents complaining that their food, general waste and/or recycling bins have not been collected. Residents are often unable to report missed bins on the Council web page, and the information about missed collections invariably does not apply to those whose bins have been missed. In their recent annual report, Ubico published that they make 99.92% ‘collection accuracy’ in their Operational Performance section. This dazzling statistic is hard to believe as it does not represent the reality of resident’s day to day experiences across the district.
Could you please explain how “collection accuracy” is calculated including how a missed collection is defined? Are missed collections attributed to operational failures (such as vehicle breakdowns or staff shortages) included in this calculation? If so, please can you provide the number of missed collections for green waste, general waste and recycling, broken down by reason (including operational issues)?
Question 2: Cllr Len Wilkins to Cllr Juliet Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning. The recently published “Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2 2025” includes a snapshot of Planning Enforcement cases and shows that 648 cases were active at that time with a clear upward trend in new cases. CDC's organisation chart shows that two out of the four of the staff positions in this department are vacant and are interim appointments.
It’s clear that this department is under resourced and struggling to keep on top of its workload, what plans does CDC have to improve this unfortunate position?
Question 3: Cllr Laura Hall-Wilson to Cllr Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services. Earlier this month, we saw bin collections cancelled in Tetbury on Monday 5th January due to weather conditions, the weather continued to be very cold on Monday ... view the full agenda text for item 65. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillors’ written questions, written responses, supplementary questions and supplementary responses can be found in Annex A attached. |
|||||||||
|
Appointment of Committees- vacant seat Planning & Licensing Committee
Purpose: To make an appointment to Planning and Licensing Committee for the remainder of the Civic Year 2025/26, following the resignation from the Committee of Councillor Tristan Wilkinson on 9 December 2025
Recommendation: To appoint Councillor (TBC) to the vacant Liberal Democrat seat on the Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee for a term of office expiring at the next Annual Meeting of the Council. Additional documents: Minutes: Purpose: To make an appointment to Planning and Licensing Committee for the remainder of the Civic Year 2025/26, following the resignation from the Committee of Councillor Tristan Wilkinson on 9 December 2025.
The Leader, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the item and advised that, in addition to appointing a member to the vacant Liberal Democrat seat on the Planning and Licensing Committee, the Council was also required to appoint a Liberal Democrat member to the Audit and Governance Committee.
The vacancies had arisen following the resignation of Councillor Wilkinson and the appointment of Councillor Dale to Cabinet, which, under the Constitution, made him ineligible to continue serving on the Audit and Governance Committee.
Councillor Mike Evemy proposed the nomination of Councillor Joe Harris to the Planning and Licensing Committee and Councillor Paul Hodgkinson to the Audit and Governance Committee. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Juliet Layton.
There were no questions for clarity. The Chair then moved to the debate.
During debate, comments were made regarding recent attendance levels and quorum arrangements at the Planning and Licensing Committee, with assurance given that quorum requirements could be reviewed by the Constitution Working Group at an appropriate time.
The Chair then moved to the vote on the resolution which was proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor Juliet Layton.
Voting record: 31 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions.
|
|||||||||
|
New Fee for Primate Licenses Purpose: To seek Council’s approval to implement a fee for primate licensing applications, subject to the proposed fees having been approved by the Planning and Licensing Committee at their meeting on 14 January 2026.
Recommendation: Subject to the resolutions of the Planning and Licensing Committee on 14 January 2026, Council is recommended to:
Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of the report was to seek the Council’s approval to implement fees for primate licensing applications, with the proposed fees having been approved by the Planning and Licensing Committee at its meeting on 14 January 2026.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, introduced the report and outlined the Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2024, made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The regulations established a licensing scheme requiring private primate keepers to meet zoo-level welfare standards.
It was noted that the regulations had come into force on 6 April 2025 and required existing and prospective primate keepers to hold a license, with inspections undertaken prior to the determination of an application and at least once during the license period. The scheme applied to specified primate species, as set out in the regulations.
Members were advised that the regulations allowed local authorities to charge fees, and the report set out the proposed fees for applications, renewals, and variations.
The Chair invited questions of clarification. Members asked how many primates were currently kept within the district and whether the proposals would generate a material income. It was confirmed that the matter had previously been considered by the Planning and Licensing Committee and that officers were not aware of any primates currently being kept within the district.
Councillor Tom Stowe seconded the recommendations and spoke in support of the proposals, noting that while the item focused on licensing fees, it also reflected wider animal welfare responsibilities. Concerns regarding the keeping of primates in captivity were acknowledged, and it was noted that the licensing regime would provide a degree of protection by enabling the Council to monitor private keeping and welfare standards.
Members were advised that the proposed fees were based on full cost recovery, aligned with other licensing fees, and subject to annual review. It was emphasised that the fees were not intended to generate income but to ensure that inspection and enforcement costs were met by applicants rather than taxpayers. The Chair then moved to the debate. During debate, Members expressed support for the proposals and highlighted broader animal welfare considerations. The importance of effective monitoring was emphasised, and officers were thanked for their work. Reference was made to wider scientific recognition of sentience, and support was expressed for calls to restrict or prohibit private primate ownership, with suggestions that the issue be raised with local Members of Parliament.
Members also queried enforcement arrangements. It was explained that the Council retained responsibility for enforcement and would work with external organisations, including the RSPCA and specialist rescue centres, where license conditions were not met. This could include supporting the rehoming of animals where necessary.
The Chair then moved to the vote on the resolution proposed by Councillor Andrea Pellegram and seconded by Councillor Tom Stowe.
Voting record 31 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions.
|
|||||||||
|
Treasury Management Mid-Year Report Purpose: To receive and discuss details of the Council's Treasury Management performance for the period 01 April to 30 September 2025 and Quarter 2 Treasury Management Prudential Indicators.
Recommendations: That Council resolves to: 1. Note the Council’s Treasury Management performance for the period 1 April 2025 to 30 September 2025 and the Quarter 2 Prudential Indicators. 2. Approve the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2025/26
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to allow Members to receive and discuss details of the Council's Treasury Management performance for the period 01 April to 30 September 2025..
Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Patrick Coleman, introduced the Treasury Management report for the first six months of the financial year. It was noted that the report showed a broadly positive position, although future financial uncertainty remained.
Members were advised that the statutory override for externally managed pooled investments had been extended for a further four years beyond 31 March, which was beneficial given the Council’s investment holdings of £10.5m in strategic pooled funds, primarily held for income generation. Some capital growth had been achieved during the period, and overall trends were reported as positive.
The presence of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer was noted for the purpose of responding to technical questions.
The Chair thanked Councillor Coleman and invited questions for clarification.
Clarification was sought regarding the Council’s pooled fund investments with reference to recent volatility in global stock markets. Questions were asked as to what extent the Council actively managed its pooled funds and whether the Council relied on external consultants to rebalance or switch investments in response to market movements, or whether management of the funds was undertaken on a more passive, “light-touch” basis.
Councillor Patrick Coleman noted that the question was helpful in improving members’ understanding of financial markets. He observed that there was a distinction between stock market movements and pooled fund performance and suggested that the relationship between these investment types would be best explained by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer.
The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, explained that the Council’s pooled fund investments were detailed in Table 5 on page 49 of the public report and advised that these investments were held for the long term, typically over a five-to ten-year period, and that the decision to invest in specific funds had been made by Council some years previously. Any change to those investments would require a further Council decision.
Members were cautioned that past performance was not a reliable indicator of future performance and it was highlighted that there were costs associated with changing investments and changes should not be undertaken lightly. He noted that the initial investment of £12.5 million had reduced in value to £11.686 million as of 30 September 2025, and that selling and reinvesting would crystallise that capital loss.
It was further clarified that the Council undertook regular reviews, with support from its advisers, to ensure the investment portfolio remained diversified across different asset classes, including property funds, income-maximising funds, and multi-asset funds. This approach reduced exposure to any single market or fund. He advised members to note current performance and confirmed that the Audit and Governance Committee could provide further assurance regarding the robustness of the investments.
It was noted that the Council’s Treasury Management Risk Reserve had been established approximately 18 months earlier to manage the risk associated with the statutory override relating to pooled fund valuation losses. ... view the full minutes text for item 68.
|
|||||||||
|
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12, the following Motion has been received:-
Motion A: Making the Cotswolds a Dementia Friendly District Proposed by: Councillor Mark Harris Seconded by: Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
Motion: That Cotswold District Council commits to championing the development of Dementia Friendly towns and communities across the Cotswold District, working in partnership with town and parish councils, community organisations, businesses, and relevant public sector partners. This commitment aligns with the Council’s Corporate Plan objectives relating to supporting healthy, inclusive communities, reducing inequality, and enabling residents to live well and independently for longer.
To give effect to this commitment, Council resolves to:
Supporting Note (for information) Dementia affects a growing number of residents across the Cotswolds, with significant impacts on individuals, families, carers, and local communities. Creating Dementia Friendly Communities helps ensure that people living with dementia are understood, respected, and supported, enabling them to remain active and independent members of society for as long as possible. Cotswold District Council’s Corporate Plan places strong emphasis on: · Health and wellbeing · Stronger, more inclusive communities · Reducing isolation and inequality · Working in partnership to deliver outcomes Championing Dementia Friendly Communities directly supports these aims, while recognising that leadership at district level can help:
The Local Government Association and Alzheimer’s Society both encourage councils to play a convening and enabling role, rather than delivering services directly, making this initiative well suited to the District Council’s strategic role.
Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted by Council that the Chair, Councillor Mark Harris, would propose a motion to Council.
Councillor Mark Harris was invited by the Vice-Chair to propose Motion 1, Making the Cotswolds a Dementia-Friendly District, and made the following points:
· Town and parish councils had an important role in shaping places that were more navigable and supportive for people living with dementia and their families, without taking on direct service delivery. · The motion sought to provide leadership, coordination, and encouragement, drawing on guidance and best practice from the Local Government Association, the Alzheimer’s Society, and existing local groups. · A report was requested to set out realistic next steps for supporting towns and parishes within existing or minimal additional resources. · The approach aligned with the Council’s corporate plan priorities on health and wellbeing, inclusion, reducing isolation, and enabling residents to live independently for longer.
Councillor Harris commended the motion as compassionate, practical, and forward-looking.
Members spoke in support of the motion and made the following points:
· It was noted that support from officers would be sought to produce a report on the Cotswolds becoming a dementia-friendly district. · The value of existing local resources, including Gloucestershire’s memory centre, was recognised. · Challenges faced by carers, particularly those not formally recognised, were highlighted, including long delays in accessing support services. · The significant social, emotional, and practical impacts of dementia on individuals and their families were noted, alongside the importance of effective signposting to local organisations and community groups. · Dementia-friendly communities were highlighted as helping to remove barriers, promote inclusion, and deliver wider benefits for other residents, including neuro-divergent individuals. · The need to review dementia care in acute hospital settings was raised, along with the importance of arranging powers of attorney at an early stage. · The role of businesses, retail, hospitality, and town-centre organisations in providing practical support was emphasised, including the need for education and training. · Community-based dementia-friendly initiatives were highlighted, such as cafés, local projects, and training programmes already operating across the district. · County-wide initiatives and future developments, including virtual training opportunities, were noted. · The importance of embedding dementia- and age-friendly principles in planning to reduce isolation and improve accessibility was emphasised.
Officers confirmed that proposed extra wording at points 3 and 4 were agreed with the consent of the meeting, specifically to reference the NHS in Resolution 3 and to amend the final bullet of Resolution 4 to read “people with dementia, carers, and communities across the district.”
Councillor Paul Hodgkinson seconded the motion proposed by Councillor Mark Harris, expressing strong support. It was noted that the motion was thoughtful, practical, and proportionate, building on existing work across the county without committing to costly new services. It was observed that dementia affects not only those living with the condition but also carers, families, volunteers, and the wider community, and that creating dementia-friendly communities would make everyday life easier and more dignified. Positive local examples, including dementia-friendly cafes and initiatives supported by Gloucestershire County Council in partnership with the NHS, voluntary sector, and ... view the full minutes text for item 69.
|
|||||||||
|
Next meeting The next meeting of Council will be held on 23 February 2026. The meeting will start at 6.00 pm. Additional documents: Minutes: The next meeting of Full Council was confirmed as being on Monday 23 February at 6:00 pm. It was noted that this would be Budget Council.
|
Carried