Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 535 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 the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is 3 members. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no apologies received. |
|
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no substitute Members. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interests were made. |
|
|
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2026 were amended to correct the spelling of Councillor Claire Bloomer’s name and add Simon Harper to the attendance list. Councillor Ian Watson proposed accepting the amended minutes and Councillor Michael Vann seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2026. |
|
|
Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting To consider actions outstanding from minutes of previous meetings. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair thanked officers for providing clear responses on matters arising, including work to encourage car-free travel to the Cotswolds despite transport challenges, and the Council’s approach to weed control, noting that glyphosate was applied in line with WHO and EU guidance. |
|
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair requested advance questions for the September UBICO report so detailed responses could be prepared. The Chair explained that the O&S meeting on 3 August had the Local Plan as the only item on the agenda and members of the public were encouraged to attend. Any O&S member who was aware they would miss this meeting was requested to organise a substitute. The report papers would be published on 10 days ahead of the meeting. It was recommended that questions could be shared with the Chair and Democratic Services in advance so officers could prepare answers for the meeting.
Future performance reporting would combine service performance, financial performance and the strategic risk register reports into a single, more integrated report, providing a clearer corporate overview while reducing duplication. |
|
|
Public Questions A maximum of 15 minutes is allocated for an “open forum” of public questions at committee meetings. No person may ask more than two questions (including supplementary questions) and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation. The maximum length of oral questions or supplementary questions by the public will be one minute. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the Committee but questions in this section cannot relate to applications for determination at the meeting.
The response may take the form of:
a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); 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 A maximum period of fifteen minutes is allowed for Member questions. Questions must be directed to the Chair and must relate to the remit of the committee.
Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received, except that the Chair may group together similar questions.
The deadline for submitting questions is 5.00pm on the working day before the day of the meeting unless the Chair agrees that the question relates to an urgent matter, in which case the deadline is 9.30am on the day of the meeting.
A member may submit no more than two questions. At the meeting the member may ask a supplementary question arising directly from the original question or the reply. The maximum length of a supplementary question is one minute.
The response to a question or supplementary question may take the form of:
a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); 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. |
|
|
Report back on recommendations For the Committee to note the Cabinet’s response to any recommendations arising from the previous Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee’s views on Local Government Reorganisation had been considered by Cabinet, and recommendations on the waste service relating to Bring Banks and the collection of soft plastics were noted and actioned. |
|
|
Financial Performance Report - Q4 2025/26 Purpose This report sets out the full year budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.
Accountable Member Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance Report Author Michelle Burge, Chief Accountant and Deputy Section 151 Officer
**Report to follow**
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to set out the full year budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.
The report was introduced by Councillor Patrick Coleman the Cabinet Member for Finance, and David Stanley, Chief Finance Officerwho highlighted the following points:
· The outturn financial position was positive, increasing the surplus by £206,000 compared to Q3 to a total revenue surplus of £251,000. · Key drivers included higher-than-expected car park income (with £165,000 earmarked for new ticket machines) and strong planning fee income (£710,000 above budget, with full provision set aside due to appeal risk). · The Ubico contract, which ended the year £166,000 over budget, prompted further work on improved forecasting and cost mitigation.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:
· Work was ongoing with Ubico to improve monthly forecasting and monitoring of fuel usage and costs. · Vacancy management required all posts to be approved before filling, with senior review of business cases, meaning only essential roles were recruited to while some vacancies were held or removed, generating budget savings and a positive financial variance. Resource allocation remains a political decision. Financial monitoring would identify whether the budget was underspent or overspent, with any available surplus requiring decision by the administration on whether and how it should be allocated in line with their priorities. · Additional postage costs from the “LIFT” project were not fully covered by the original project budget, as it related to subsequent processing by the revenues and benefits team. · Under the Ubico partnership arrangement, the Council retained financial risk for Ubico costs, with limited ability to apply financial penalties.
· The Publica Phase 2 had been estimated to cost £300,000 for service transfer plus a similar amount for redundancy. The actual staffing costs following transfer in July 2025 were lower than expected. · The £2m LGR reserve was acknowledged as a prudent financial measure to manage the costs of Local Government Reorganisation. · The Council’s risk register identified ongoing capacity issues within planning enforcement.
Recommendations to Cabinet 1. Ubico Contract: To inform the Cabinet of concerns around the Ubico contract and support more rigorous monitoring and forecasting of costs following delayed notification ... view the full minutes text for item OS.355 |
|
|
Service Performance Report - Q4 2025/26 Purpose To provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.
Accountable Member Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council Report Author Yemi Olu-Opaleye, Senior Performance Analyst
**Report to follow** Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.
The report was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council and Gemma Moreing, Business Information, Performance & Improvement Manager.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: · Council tax collection rules were set nationally. If a Direct Debit was missed, the system currently treats this as a loss of the right to pay by instalments, triggering recovery action. Officers encouraged anyone to contact the council early, before formal recovery letters are issued. Government was consulting on changes to this process and has indicated plans to extend the time before enforcement action was triggered. · The council did not use a single organisation-wide system for performance improvement; instead, different services use a mix of approaches, with business partnering and dashboards used to monitor performance and support decision-making. Local Government Reorganisation was expected to drive a more unified, service-user-focused approach to performance and improvement. · Land charges’ performance had been affected by staffing changes. The service also depended heavily on other internal teams providing timely responses, and this was contributing to ongoing performance issues. · The rise in empty properties was recognised but not fully explained. Officers continued to work on incentives and engagement through the relevant teams to reduce the number. · Empty properties were categorised by broad reasons (eg. probate or contact issues), but detailed reporting was restricted by data protection, with members suggesting a higher-level summary to improve transparency. Recommendations to Cabinet 1. Processing time for Land Charges: To inform the Cabinet of concerns regarding extended processing times for land charges and the impact on residents and businesses buying and selling properties in the district. 2. Council Tax support applications: To commend officers on the improvement in processing time for council tax support applications. 3. Empty Homes: To express concern regarding the growing number of empty homes in the district and seek information from officers on the actions that the Council is taking to address this problem, recognising that the powers available to the Council are limited. |
|
|
Planning Enforcement Report Purpose This report provides an update on the performance, staffing, and capacity of the Planning Enforcement Team following the transition of planning services back into the Council in November 2024 and the subsequent PAS Peer Review. It summarises progress against the PAS Action Plan, identifies continuing service pressures including recruitment challenges and backlog management, and sets out the measures underway to improve resilience, service efficiency, and performance. The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the progress made and note the areas where performance remains constrained.
Accountable Member Juliet Layton - Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Report Author Harrison Bowley – Head of Planning Services
**Report to follow**
Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of the report was to provide an update on the performance, staffing, and capacity of the Planning Enforcement Team following the transition of planning services back into the Council in November 2024 and the subsequent PAS Peer Review.
The report was introduced by Councillor Juliet Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, and Harrison Bowley, Head of Planning Services.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: · Members expressed concern about inconsistent enforcement case updates and staff turnover, with officers acknowledging current resource and system limitations but committed to improve and automate reporting so that members could see clearer, ongoing case progress whilst balancing legal constraints. · A system for improved reporting to members was being developed and was expected to be in place within the lifetime of Cotswold District Council, with an aim of late summer to end of the year. It was being built alongside a new enforcement plan and wider back-office improvements, though legacy data issues from older cases might delay full implementation. · Listed buildings were treated as a top enforcement priority, with a target response time of around 48 hours and site visits to prevent irreversible harm. · The enforcement team currently had six posts, but one senior enforcement officer position remained unfilled. · No planning posts were included within the vacancy management savings with planning and enforcement roles being protected and funded. · Enforcement work required specialist legal and procedural knowledge, so short-term redeployment was not straightforward. · Cases were not left indefinitely but were triaged and either closed or reactivated depending on harm and priority. A structured backlog clearance strategy was in place with governance oversight, and cases were assessed against age, risk, and planning harm rather than being automatically dropped. · Officers clarified the legal distinction between types of planning breaches: listed building and tree protection offences could be treated as criminal matters, while most other breaches only became enforceable after formal notices and non-compliance. · The backlog consisted of a wide mix of cases, but the Council currently did not have reliable data to quantify it precisely by severity or type. · A full breakdown into “minor” versus “significant” cases was not yet possible until the backlog has been systematically worked through and reclassified under the new triage and reporting process. · Members suggested that Ward Members could help prioritise backlog cases by providing local context on severity, particularly for less complex or lower-level breaches, subject to confidentiality considerations. · A resident-facing enforcement guide was proposed, alongside clearer communication for councillors to show where cases sit in the process and what timescales and likely outcomes to expect after reporting. · Improvements were being explored to make public information more accessible digitally, reducing reliance on lengthy reports and improving clarity for both residents and councillors.
Councillor David Cunningham proposed submitting the following recommendations to Cabinet. Councillor Angus Jenkinson seconded the proposal. The Committee voted to accept the proposal. Recommendations to Cabinet 1. To note that that there is a recognised long-standing issue relating to Planning Enforcement. 2. To welcome the ... view the full minutes text for item OS.357 |
|
|
Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees Purpose To receive any verbal updates on the work of external scrutiny bodies:
Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee – Cllr Angus Jenkinson Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee – Cllr Dilys Neill
Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Jenkinson confirmed that Members had received the report and recommendations of the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee. |
|
|
Work Plan and Forward Plan For the Committee to note and review its work plan and to select Cabinet decisions for pre-decision scrutiny at future committee meetings. Additional documents: Minutes: The August meeting would focus solely on the Local Plan, with the Asset Management Strategy and Climate Emergency Update deferred to September. |