Agenda and minutes
PDF 587 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 Juliet Layton, Councillor Helene Mansilla, Councillor Nigel Robbins and Councillor Tristan Wilkinson. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair reminded members that in respect of item 9 on the agenda, that Council had agreed at its meeting on 18 January 2023 to approve, under Section 33 of the Localism Act 2011, a number of general dispensations. This included a dispensation as regards determining allowances paid to members. This dispensation enabled all members to participate in the discussion and vote on matters relating to members’ allowances, despite the direct financial interest.
It was also noted that in relation to item 13 on the agenda; Local Government Reorganisation, councillors who were also elected to Gloucestershire County Council or any Town or Parish Council could participate in the debate on the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) proposals, provided that they approached the discussion with an open mind. The Monitoring Officer advised that prior expression of a view on LGR proposals did not automatically preclude participation, subject to the member remaining open to persuasion during the meeting. Furthermore, councillors who had previously declared their membership of another local authority in their Register of Interests were not required to repeat this declaration at the Full Council meeting.
It was noted that the Interim Chief Executive, who was the subject of agenda item 8 would leave the room for the duration of that item.
There were no other declarations of interest. |
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 24 September 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: Council considered the minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 September 2025. Councillor Judd requested that an amendment be made at item 40 Public Questions, on question 2 from Valerie Dyson so that it better aligned with the wording used at the meeting.
Councillor Evemy proposed the approval of the amended minutes. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Stowe, put to the vote and agreed by Council.
RESOLVED that the amended minutes of Full Council 24 September 2025 were approved as a true and accurate record.
Voting record: 27 For, 0 Against, 3 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 advised councillors that a Cabinet meeting would follow shortly after the conclusion of Full Council.
The Chair reported attending several Remembrance events, including the ceremony in Cirencester and, alongside the Chief Executive, the delivery of a wreath to the Poppy Train travelling to Paddington. The Chair thanked councillors who had represented the Council at events across the District.
Condolences were expressed to former Councillor Maggie Heaven following the death of her husband, Frank, on 19 October. Councillor Fowles provided funeral details and conveyed Maggie’s thanks for the support she had received.
The Chair then invited Councillor Andrew Maclean to make an announcement. Councillor Andrew Maclean announced his resignation as a District Councillor due to a serious health condition. Councillor Maclean stated that it had been a privilege to represent the four villages of the Rissingtons over the past six years, highlighting the unique character and community spirit of Upper Rissington, Great Rissington, Little Rissington, and Wick Rissington. Councillor Maclean thanked colleagues and residents for their support, reflected on his commitment to sustainability, green issues, and the local community, and indicated that he wished to focus on his family and faith in light of his prognosis. The Chair and councillors thanked Councillor Maclean for sharing his announcement and expressed their appreciation for his wisdom, passion, and humour during his time on the Council. They offered their support to him in the coming months and extended their best wishes.
Councillor Maclean left the Chamber.
Leaders announcements The Leader acknowledged that Councillor Maclean had left the room but noted he could watch the proceedings later if he wished. The Leader paid tribute to Councillor Maclean’s six years of service, highlighting his achievement as the first Green Councillor elected to the Council. Councillors recognised him as approachable, collaborative, and constructive, particularly on climate change issues during both previous and current council terms. The Leader expressed that he would be greatly missed.
The Leader reflected on recent Remembrance events, attending the service in Fairford with the Mayor, Richard Harrison, and Councillor Vann, and parading through the town centre. Thanks were extended to those who attended the Council’s event, chaired by Councillor Mark Harris, which included representatives from 29th Regiment and the Royal British Legion. The Leader emphasised the importance of remembering both those who had lost their lives in conflicts and those who had sacrificed to secure freedoms.
An update was provided on the local plan consultation, which had been underway for just over a week. Over 100 comments had been submitted, with hundreds of additional visits via social media and the Council website. Two forums for Town and Parish Councils had been held, attended by over 150 councillors and clerks, and more than seventy questions had been addressed and circulated to district councillors and clerks.
The Leader and Councillor Layton, together with the Director of Communities and Place, and other officers, had attended public meetings organised by ward councillors and Town or Parish Councils, including in Ampney Crucis, Driffield, Kemble, ... view the full minutes text for item 49. |
|||||||||
|
Unsung Heroes Awards Purpose To announce the Unsung Heroes awards for this quarter. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair announced the Young Unsung Heroes, under 25 category, with two awards being noted for November:
· Liam Radford was recognised as an exemplary community member and dedicated Police Cadet volunteer, completing over 105 hours of volunteering last year and more than 68 hours this year, including leading the children’s sports day at the Chesterton Summer Family Day.
· Heidi, Otis, and Heath Forbes were also honoured for their determination in climbing the Three Peaks to raise £1,835 for two local causes, demonstrating remarkable teamwork and endurance over a combined distance of 23 miles with a total ascent of 10,052 feet.
The Chair then announced the Unsung Heroes - over 25 category. There were three awards in this category:
· Micael Svensson was nominated for stepping in to lead the village Scout group during a period without leaders, covering multiple sections until replacements were found. He volunteered extensively at community events, assisted elderly neighbours, maintained the Scout hut grounds, and supported the local church. His dedication and care were widely recognised as having a lasting impact on the community.
· Amy Curtis a volunteer and holistic therapist at Charlie’s Cancer Support Group in Cirencester, providing free reflexology and reiki sessions twice a month was also recognised. She consistently demonstrated compassion and selflessness, offering warmth and support to those affected by cancer despite facing personal challenges.
· Allen Howe who had served as Chair of the Cirencester Branch of the Royal British Legion for 30 years and had been a member for 36 years was also named as an Unsung Hero. He organised the Poppy Appeal, Remembrance Day services, and fundraising concerts, supporting veterans and promoting community engagement. With 22 years of Army service and 20 years with the MOD, he continued to demonstrate tireless dedication to public service.
All the winners present were applauded as they received their certificates and medals. |
|||||||||
|
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: One public question had been received in advance from Mr David Redgewell. The question concerned Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and was directed at the Leader of the Council Councillor Mike Evemy. The questioner referred to the 1974 local government reorganisation. They expressed concern that the proposed Cheltenham and Cotswold Borough Council two unitary option appeared Cheltenham-centric and asked how essential services—fire, police, NHS provision, bus services, social services, planning, and highways—would be maintained under such a split. They highlighted potential duplication of key roles and noted that the police were planned to align with Avon and Somerset.
Mr Redgewell asked whether the Council wished to become part of a smaller body, or to remain part of a unitary Gloucestershire structure.
Councillor Evemy responded that the matter was under consideration as part of agenda item 13 on the Full Council agenda. Two proposals were being reviewed: a single unitary council for Gloucestershire and an East–West split. It was noted that Council would form a collective view during the forthcoming debate and that Cabinet would subsequently make formal representations to the government. It was clarified that the ultimate decision rested with a government minister once the government had considered and consulted on the options proposed to it. The points raised by the questioner were acknowledged as being reflected in the papers and would be considered during the government’s review and public consultation of all supported options.
Mr Redgewell then asked a supplementary question, seeking clarification as to whether, if the Council supported a single unitary Gloucestershire, it would ensure that the views of Cotswolds residents were clearly communicated to the government. He emphasised the importance of local input into the decision-making process to ensure that any government decision reflected the wishes of the community.
Councillor Evemy confirmed that, once Cabinet had made its decision, he intended to write to the government explaining the Council’s preferred option and encouraging its adoption. He noted that the government would conduct a public consultation, likely on at least two of the three options, and confirmed that the Council would encourage Cotswolds residents to participate. It was confirmed that the Council would communicate its decision publicly, including through the media, to explain which option it considered best for the district.
Mr Redgewell then proceeded to ask his second question regarding the potential benefits of a unitary authority, noting that a combined mayoral authority could provide funding to improve public transport highlighting recent NHS integration with Bristol, South Gloucestershire, and North Somerset. Assurances were asked for that, as police and potentially fire services joined combined authorities, the Cotswolds would be represented in a Gloucestershire-focused authority rather than one oriented towards Worcester or Birmingham. It was requested that the Council work with Gloucestershire County Council and the Mayor of the West of England to explore joining a mayoral combined authority before 2032 to secure benefits for public transport, housing, and regional planning in the Cotswolds.
Councillor Evemy responded that the matter of mayoral and strategic combined authorities had been ... view the full minutes text for item 51. |
|||||||||
|
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 Member questions were submitted prior to the publication of the Agenda.
Question 1: Councillor Julia Judd to Councillor Juliet Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning. CDC is currently recruiting Enforcement Officers. There seems to be an ongoing issue with recruitment and retention of staff in this department. In January 2023, Cllr Stephen Andrews put forward the motion “Armed Forces Covenant Re-Endorsement”, which I seconded and used the opportunity to talk about The Veteran’s Gateway.
The Veterans Gateway offers information, advice and support for army veterans and their families. They are the first point of contact for army veteran welfare needs including employability and ongoing opportunities. If training is needed, this can be funded by The Forces Employment Charity. I liaised with both organisations who responded enthusiastically to my suggestion that an Enforcement Officer role would be a great fit for army veterans, as it is for ex-Police, as there are many transferable skills. I liaised with Planning Services Management and shared the information and contact details of both The Veterans Gateway and The Forces Employment Charity. As CDC is in the process of recruiting an Enforcement Officer, has this line of enquiry been pursued?
Question 2: Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson to Councillor Paul Hodgkinson, Cabinet Member for Health, Culture and Visitor Experience. I am a frequent user of the pool at Cirencester Leisure Centre and along with many of my contemporaries with young families, we have become concerned at the lack of managerial oversight of some of the younger members of staff at the centre, culminating recently in a physical altercation between two members of staff at the side of the pool during the children's swimming lessons. I am sure you will agree that it is completely unacceptable.
In the lead up to this event, there have been several Sundays where lifeguards are overwhelmed by too ... view the full agenda text for item 52. Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillors’ written questions, written responses, supplementary questions and supplementary responses can be found in Annex A attached. |
|||||||||
|
Purpose: The purpose of this report is to approve the recommendation of the Performance and Appointments Committee that the Interim Chief Executive Officer (Head of Paid Service) and Returning Officer / Electoral Registration Officer is appointed on a permanent basis from 1 January 2026.
Recommendation(s): Council is recommended by the Performance and Appointments Committee to: 1. Appoint Jane Portman to the role of permanent Chief Executive Officer with effect from 1 January 2026 on an annual salary of £140,000 with an additional one-off allowance of up to £8,000. 2. Appoint Jane Portman as the Council’s Head of Paid Service for the purposes of Section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 with effect from 1 January 2026. 3. Appoint Jane Portman as the Council’s Returning Officer for the purposes of Section 35 of the Representation of the Peoples Act (1983) and Regulation 4 of the Parish & Community Meeting (Polls) Rules (1987). Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of this report was to approve the recommendation of the Performance and Appointments Committee that the Interim Chief Executive Officer (Head of Paid Service) and Returning Officer / Electoral Registration Officer be appointed on a permanent basis from 1 January 2026.
To avoid any potential perceptions of bias, the Interim Chief Executive Officer, Jane Portman withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the item.
The Leader, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the item and clarified that recommendation three should have included the words ‘and electoral registration officer’ after ‘returning officer’. Councillors noted the amended recommendation.
Councillors noted that Jane Portman, appointed as Interim Chief Executive Officer in June 2025, had brought valuable experience from previous local government reorganisations. A probation review in September, informed by feedback from the Leader and opposition members, confirmed her effective leadership and positive impact. Subsequent discussions considered her permanent appointment, including terms, salary benchmarking, and a one-off relocation allowance. The Performance and Appointments Committee met in November and unanimously recommended her appointment as permanent Chief Executive, and Councillors were invited to support the recommendation.
There were no questions for clarity.
Councillor Tom Stowe seconded the recommendation, and his involvement in the Performance and Appointments Committee and performance appraisals was noted. Members acknowledged that Jane Portman had provided stability and clarity during a period of organisational change, including the departure of the previous Chief Executive, changes in Cabinet leadership, the completion of phase two of the Publica transition, and uncertainty around forthcoming Local Government Reorganisation. The Committee had considered alternative options, including external recruitment, and undertaken salary benchmarking in line with Cotswold District Council policy. It concluded that her permanent appointment offered proven leadership, stability, and continuity, while also being cost-effective. Positive feedback had been received from staff and members, and Councillors were encouraged to support the recommendation.
The Chair moved to the debate – there were no requests to speak in debate.
The Chair then moved to the vote on the amended resolution which was proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor Tom Stowe.
Voting Record: 29 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions. Did not vote: Councillor Andrew MacClean having left the meeting.
|
|||||||||
|
Mid-Term Review of Members' Allowances Scheme Purpose: To present to Council the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel which has undertaken a mid-term review of the Council’s members’ allowances scheme.
Recommendation(s): That Council considers the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel, which are that: 1. The special responsibility allowance (SRA) for Leader is increased from 3.0x the basic allowance to 3.5x the basic allowance. 2. The SRA for Deputy Leader is increased from 2.0x basic to 2.5x basic. 3. The SRA for Cabinet Member is increased from 1.5x basic to 2.0x basic. 4. The SRA for Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee is increased from 1.0x basic to 1.5x basic. 5. The SRA for Chair of Audit and Governance Committee is increased from 0.5x basic to 1.0x basic. 6. Any agreed increases to SRAs are backdated to 1 April 2025 (being the mid-point of the 4-year Scheme). 7. The existing allowance for Co-opted Members of £1,000 per annum is included in the Scheme. 8. That additional clarification is provided on expenses claims in the Scheme, specifically that: a. The list of approved duties for which expenses can be claimed is included in the Scheme. b. VAT receipts are requested for mileage claims. c. Mileage claims should normally be calculated from the Councillor’s home address. d. Claims should be made within 3 months of the expenditure being incurred. e. Mileage rates are aligned with HMRC rates to prevent the creation of taxable benefits. 9. Officers engage with town and parish councils in the New Year on the option of establishing a tiered allowances scheme to guide town and parish councils in the payment of allowances to elected town and parish councillors, to enable the Independent Remuneration Panel (as the Parish Remuneration Panel) to assess whether such guidance would be useful. 10.Note that the Parish Remuneration Panel has recommended to Cirencester Town Council that Cirencester Town Councillors (including the Chair) receive an allowance set at 20% of the basic allowance paid to Cotswold District Councillors. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to present to Council the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel which had undertaken a mid-term review of the Council’s members’ allowances scheme.
Nick Craxton, Chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel, introduced the report and stated that the Panel comprised a broad and well-balanced range of experience across the private and public sectors, subject matter experts, reward and HR specialists, and individuals familiar with the Council’s operations. He emphasised that the Panel’s recommendations had followed extensive discussion, with several matters revisited in light of further evidence. The Panel Chair highlighted the challenges the Panel had faced in proposing councillor and leadership remuneration, noting that the requirement to reflect a “public service” element — implying lower pay — might be seen as conflicting with the Council’s aim to make these roles accessible to a wider range of people. It was noted that the panel had considered written representations from the former Leader and heard evidence from the current Leader. Although the current Leader wished to undertake the role full-time, Mr Craxton advised that the Panel could not give this weight, as full-time arrangements were neither legislated nor prescribed. He added that making the role full-time would require substantially higher pay, noting that a locally advertised trade counter supervisor post offered a higher salary than the Council Leader both before and after the proposed increase. The Panel Chair concluded by noting that consideration of economic context and affordability lay outside the Panel’s remit and was a matter for the Council. He indicated that he was happy to answer questions.
The Chair indicated that Councillor Evemy would be invited to propose the recommendations and that there would be the opportunity to ask any questions for clarity. The Chair advised that the report should be taken at face value and that it was not necessary to examine the Panel’s detailed methodology.
Councillor Evemy thanked Mr Craxton for attending and acknowledged the significant work undertaken by the Panel over several meetings. He noted that he had attended one meeting and valued the opportunity to contribute. Councillors were reminded that this was a mid-term review. It was noted that no changes had been made to Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) during the previous review, as it had been unclear whether increased workloads were temporary or would persist. It was further noted that the Panel had drawn on the councillor workload survey and on representations from the former Leader, himself, and other councillors.
Councillor Evemy acknowledged the difficulty for councillors in determining their own allowances, which underlined the value of the Independent Remuneration Panel. It was reported that the Panel had recommended increased SRAs for Cabinet roles and for the Chairs of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Audit and Governance Committee. These recommendations were in recognition of the workload associated with these roles.
Councillors were also asked to note recommendations to update provisions on co-opted member allowances, clarify approved duties, and provide a framework for town and parish council allowances, ... view the full minutes text for item 54.
|
|||||||||
|
Council Tax Support Scheme 2026/2027 Purpose To consider the revised Council Tax Support Scheme for the financial year 2026/27.
Recommendation(s): Cabinet recommends that Full Council resolves to: 1. Agree the increase to income bands as detailed within paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and Annex A of this report from 1 April 2026. 2. Agree that any balance remaining in the earmarked reserve ‘Hardship Fund’ be made available in 2026/27 financial year for reasons detailed in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of this report. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of this report was to consider the revised Council Tax Support Scheme for the financial year 2026/27.
The item was introduced by Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance who explained that the Council had discretion over the design of its Council Tax Support Scheme, which provided reductions for working-age residents on low incomes or in receipt of benefits. The proposal was to continue the existing scheme with an uprating in line with welfare benefits, reflecting a 3.8% increase as set out in the report.
It was noted that the approach aimed to move towards harmonisation with other districts in anticipation of the future unitary authority. The Council’s scheme was considered one of the most generous in the county. The impact of the Government’s abolition of the two-child limit was highlighted, noting that affected households would receive increased government support, with a small adjustment applied through the Council Tax Support Scheme.
Thanks were expressed to all those involved, for their work in developing and maintaining the scheme since its inception.
There were no questions for clarity
Councillor Clare Bloomer, Cabinet Member for Communities seconded the resolution and welcomed the proposals, noting that many families, including working households, were facing cost-of-living pressures. Officers were commended for their work, highlighting the support provided through hardship funding and the Low Income Family Tracker (LIFT) programme, which proactively identified residents who might not be claiming benefits they were entitled to. It was noted that annual Council Tax bills were accompanied by benefit information and guidance to ensure residents could access available support.
The Chair then moved to the debate. The Council’s leadership on cost-of-living support over recent years was commended. It was highlighted that the Council’s approach was regarded locally and nationally as a model for supporting vulnerable residents.
The Low Income Family Tracker (LIFT) programme was praised as being transformative for residents, ensuring that people were aware of and able to access the support available. Special recognition was given to the work of officers, in particular the benefits team, for effectively delivering complex policies and making information accessible to both councillors and the public.
The government’s abolition of the two-child benefit cap was welcomed as a significant step towards reducing child poverty, particularly in rural areas of the district. Councillors concluded that the combination of the Council Tax Support Scheme, the LIFT programme, and the removal of the two-child cap represented a substantial achievement in addressing financial hardship and improving outcomes for local families.
The Chair moved to the vote on the resolution proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by Councillor Bloomer.
Voting record: 29 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstention Did not vote: Councillor Andrew Maclean having left the meeting
|
|||||||||
|
Community Governance Review Purpose: The purpose of the report is to request that Council approve and adopt the Terms of Reference for a Community Governance Review along with draft proposals.
Recommendation: That Council resolves to: 1. Approve and adopt the terms of reference and draft proposals for consultation for the Community Governance Review. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of this report was to approve and adopt the Terms of Reference for a Community Governance Review, along with draft proposals The item was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council. It was noted that the papers before the Council represented responses from the consultations with Town and Parish Councils regarding potential changes to their democratic arrangements or boundaries. Councillors were asked to agree to consult on all proposed changes, without making judgments at this stage, acknowledging that some proposals might be controversial. Attention was drawn to an omission in Annex B, where certain roads in Watermoor Ward and Siddington had not been included. The correction would result in a total of 253 properties being affected by the proposed boundary changes, reducing the number of properties in Siddington from 731 to 478, and increasing the number in Cirencester, Watermoor, and surrounding areas from 1,580 to 1,833. An updated annex B would be included with the minutes of the meeting. It was also noted that the proposals included requests from town and parish councils to increase their number of members and to create wards for Tetbury Town Council. Questions for clarity included requests for clarification on which roads and businesses were included. The Electoral Services Manager confirmed that all details would be thoroughly checked before going out to public consultation. Councillor David Fowles seconded the resolution and thanked the Electoral Services team for their continued work in ensuring proper representation and managing elections effectively. The proposals from several parishes to increase the number of councillors were welcomed, this was highlighted as a positive response to local pressures and community engagement. The report and the consultation timetable were commended and the forthcoming public consultations were welcomed. Fellow Councillors were encouraged to endorse the proposals. There was no further debate. The Chair moved to the vote on the resolution proposed by Councillor Evemy seconded by Councillor Fowles. Voting record: 29 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions. Did not vote: Councillor Andrew Maclean having left the meeting
|
|||||||||
|
Programme of Meetings for 2026/2027 Purpose: To set a programme of Council and Committee meetings for 2026/27.
Recommendation(s): That Council resolves to: 1. Agree the programme of meetings from June 2026 to May 2027 as set out in Annex A and Annex B. 2. Delegate authority to the Director of Governance and Development (Monitoring Officer), in consultation with Group Leaders, to make changes to the programme of meetings in the event that there is any future decision of Council to change the committee structure or committee remits that impacts the programme of meetings. 3. Delegate authority to the Head of Democratic and Electoral Services to set the meeting dates for the Performance and Appointments Committee, member training and briefing sessions, any working groups established by the Council and any meetings of the Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Matters) and the Standards Hearings Sub-Committee (if required). 4. Agree that, subject to any alternative proposals Council considers and agrees, meeting start times will be rolled forwards from 2025/26. Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of this report was to set a programme of Council and Committee meetings for 2026/27. The item was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council who stated that the current meeting schedule had been rolled forward into 2026–27. He reminded Councillors that Cabinet now met nine times a year, with Overview and Scrutiny aligned to those core meetings to support effective pre-decision scrutiny, and confirmed that this approach would continue. No changes to meeting start times were proposed. It was noted that Democratic Services had attempted to avoid the key party conference dates when scheduling meeting dates. It was highlighted that the report recommendations delegated authority to the Director of Governance and Development, in consultation with Group Leaders, to amend the schedule if the committee structure changed, and to the Head of Democratic and Electoral Services to set dates for the Performance and Appointments Committee, member briefings, training sessions and working groups. Councillor Evemy asked that recommendation 4 be amended to retain only the agreement to roll meeting start times forward from 2025–26 as no alternatives were being proposed. There were no questions for clarity. Councillor Claire Bloomer, Cabinet Member for Communities seconded the resolution and reserved the right to speak. The Chair then moved to the debate, and there was no further debate. The Chair moved to the vote on the resolution proposed by Councillor Evemy and seconded by Councillor Bloomer. Voting record: 29 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions Did not vote: Councillor Andrew Maclean having left the meeting
|
|||||||||
|
Purpose: To note the two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire that have been developed collaboratively with all seven Gloucestershire councils for consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 17 November 2025, Council on 26 November 2025 and Cabinet on 26 November 2025. The options are: a) creating a single unitary authority for the whole county and b) creating two unitary authorities, based on an East / West division of existing district and city councils. The proposal for East Gloucestershire Council comprises Tewksbury Borough Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Cotswold District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council. The proposal for West Gloucestershire Council comprises Gloucester City Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Stroud District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council. Following engagement with the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Council, Cabinet will decide which, if any proposal should be formally submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in response to his invitation dated 5 February 2025.
Recommendation: 1. That the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Council consider the following two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire and make any recommendations they wish to Cabinet for their decision. 2. That Cabinet considers which, if any, of the proposals it wishes to submit to Government regarding the future of local government in Gloucestershire 3. That Cabinet resolves to treat the decision as urgent under Part D6, paragraph 4.14 of the Constitution, and therefore disapplies the call-in procedure, on the grounds that any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would prejudice the Council’s and the public’s interests. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of this report was to note the two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire that had been developed collaboratively with all seven Gloucestershire councils for consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 17 November 2025, Council on 26 November 2025 and Cabinet on 26 November 2025. The options proposed were: a) creating a single unitary authority for the whole county and b) creating two unitary authorities, based on an East / West division of existing district and city councils. The proposal for East Gloucestershire Council comprised Tewksbury Borough Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Cotswold District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council. The proposal for West Gloucestershire Council comprised Gloucester City Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Stroud District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council.
Following engagement with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Council, Cabinet would determine which, if any, proposal should be formally submitted to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government in response to his invitation of 5 February 2025.
The item was introduced by the Leader, Councillor Mike Evemy, who gave some background and explained that the process had been lengthy, beginning with a ministerial letter sent to the former Leader in February 2025. Work had continued since then, leading to that afternoon’s meeting, where Cotswold District Council’s Cabinet—last among the seven principal authorities—would formally make its decision. It was emphasised that the ultimate choice rested with the government, which intended to replace existing county, district, and borough councils with unitary authorities and would select from the submitted proposals. It was further noted that the extensive documents reviewed by members, including the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, would be sent to the government. Of the six councils that had already decided, three preferred a single Gloucestershire unitary, one supported a two-unitary east–west model, one backed the Greater Gloucestershire proposal, and one expressed no preference and opposed reorganisation.
The Leader then spoke to the proposed resolution to Council around Local Government Reorganisation, which had been made available to Councillors as a printed document. (Item 13 - Annex A).
Councillor Evemy noted that the process had been a long journey. Some had initially feared that a single Gloucestershire unitary would be too large and might weaken local representation, but the Council had avoided prejudgment and worked through the evidence. He explained that many involved had gradually concluded that a single unitary would offer stronger, less disruptive service delivery and greater financial resilience than an east–west split, while acknowledging that both proposals were viable and that the government could choose either option. The Council was asked to support recommending the single unitary in a joint letter from six of the seven councils confirming which of the options were preferred. The letter would be submitted before Friday’s deadline, alongside an explanatory letter from the Leader. It was noted that work would continue after submission, with leaders and chief executives preparing for the next stage while the government assessed options, planned ... view the full minutes text for item 58.
|
|||||||||
|
Next meeting The next meeting of Council will be held on 21 January 2026 at 2.00 pm. Additional documents: Minutes: The next meeting of Full Council was confirmed as being on 21 January at 2:00 pm. |
Carried