Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday, 7th July, 2025 4.00 pm

Venue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

OS.190

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence. The quorum for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is 3 members.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Jon Waring and Councillor Lisa Spivey.

OS.191

Substitute Members

To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Ian Watson substituted for Councillor Jon Waring.

OS.192

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.

OS.193

Minutes pdf icon PDF 546 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2025.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2025 were discussed.

 

Councillor Clare Turner proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor David Cunningham seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2025.

OS.194

Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 665 KB

To consider actions outstanding from minutes of previous meetings.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair acknowledged receipt of information on three key areas discussed at the previous meeting: the customer complaints procedure, street sign repairs, and an update on homelessness. The homelessness update included details on grant expenditure and current waiting list figures, broken down by category.

A further enquiry was made regarding the information circulated to Town and Parish Councils following the 5 Year Land Policy briefing. The Monitoring Officer advised that a Town and Parish Council newsletter would be issued by the end of the week, which would include feedback from the recent summit and updates on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

OS.195

Chair's Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Councillor Angus Jenkinson into the role of Vice Chair and looked forward to his support in the smooth running of Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings.

Councillors Joe Harris and Nick Bridges were welcomed as new Members of the Committee.

Members were encouraged to read the additional paper on the Executive Scrutiny Protocol as a useful reminder of the Committee’s role and focus.

An apology was given for holding two meetings on consecutive days, due to reports not being ready in June. As a result, scrutiny of key items for the July Cabinet meeting had to take place this week. Appreciation was expressed to Democratic Services for the timely circulation of reports and to the report authors for their efforts.

 

OS.196

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 two minutes. 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:

Mr Andy Farmer, secretary of the South Cotswolds Labour Party asked the following questions:

Question 1 - Farming Motion Working Group update.

A request was made to amend paragraph 3.2 to state that “representations against the motion were received from the South Cotswolds Labour Party” replacing the current wording.

Members expressed the following views regarding the request:

  • There was no objection to clarifying the Labour Party’s position on the motion, however, as the positions of other contributors were not clearly presented in the report, Members were unsure of the benefit of this clarification.

 

Question 2

A request was made to amend the report to improve transparency regarding the independence of the analysis and the interests of the Working Group Members involved. It was noted that the Council-funded report appeared to present only negative findings, without acknowledging any positives, and that transparency would allow the public to make an informed judgment.

 

Members responded as follows:

  • Declarations of interest were the responsibility of the individual and were being kept up to date on the Cotswold District Council website.
  • It was noted that party political positions did not influence any discussions held during the working group meetings.

 

It was agreed that the current version of the report had been published with the committee papers, but an updated version would be issued for the Full Council meeting. Any points agreed by the Committee would be incorporated into the next iteration of the report.

OS.197

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:

A follow-up was requested on usage of CDC electric vehicle charging points, including Trinity Road. While more time might be needed to establish patterns, a report was requested showing when chargers were used, duration, and users. A member also noted a positive experience with the Connected Kerb app.

OS.198

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:

There were no recommendations to Cabinet arising from the previous Committee meeting.

OS.199

Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report for 2024/25 pdf icon PDF 551 KB

Purpose

To receive the annual report of the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

Recommendation

That Overview and Scrutiny committee:

 

Recommend that the report be received by Full Council at the meeting on 16 July 2025.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The annual report detailing the role and work of the Committee was discussed prior to consideration by Full Council on 16 July 2025.

It was noted that the report omitted reference to the involvement of two Members in the County Council's scrutiny committees.

 

Councillor David Cunningham proposed accepting the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report and Councillor Michael Vann seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: to APPROVE the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report.

OS.200

Financial Performance Report 2024-25 Quarter 4 pdf icon PDF 806 KB

This report sets of the outturn position for the 2024/25 financial year.

 

Purpose

That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 9 July 2025.

 

Cabinet Member

Councillor Patrick Coleman

 

Lead Officer

David Stanley – Deputy Chief Executive

Michelle Burge – Chief Accountant

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to set out of the outturn position for the 2024/25 financial year.

 

The report was introduced and the follow points made:

  • The final outturn showed a surplus of £778,000, £262,000 above the budgeted surplus of £516,000. This exceeded earlier projections of £250,000 at Q2 and £435,000 at Q3.
  • There was significant movement in housing benefit overpayment figures, with an additional £236,000 income recorded. This was mainly due to adjustments ensuring overpayments were accurately identified and recovered via the financial and Civica housing benefit systems.
  • There was also an improvement in Trinity Road service charges, with some energy generated from the solar panels and core costs recovered
  • Treasury management showed a £60,000 adverse movement between Q3 and outturn.
  • It was reported that the total in-year cost of Phase 1 of the Publica transition was below the £182,000 provision included in the budget.

 

Across the period, 2023-24 and 2022-23, the Council drew a total £1.852 million from the Financial Resilience Reserve to support its revenue budget. Following a November 2023 motion, the Council committed to replenishing this reserve. With the current £778,000 surplus, £516,000 of which would be returned, and the planned budget for the current year, it was anticipated that £1.874 million would be restored to the reserve.

 

The expected outcome of the Fair Funding Review 2.0 was that the Council was likely to face reduced funding in future years. This aligned with the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), which forecasted a “cliff edge” funding cut around 2026-27. The current outturn position was more favourable, enabling the Council to retain more in earmarked reserves to help mitigate these challenges.

 

Of the overall surplus, £516,000 was transferred to the Financial Resilience Reserve. The remaining £262,000 was recommended for transfer to the Transformation Reserve, which currently held £200,000, to support broader transformation activities.

 

The capital outturn showed slippage and underspend totalling £428,000, slightly above the Q3 forecast. This was mainly due to lower spending on Disabled Facilities Grants and delays in the ORC-funded off-street residential parking scheme for electric vehicle chargers.

 

 

In questioning and discussion it was noted that:

 

  • The £170,000 adverse variance relating to commercial property income was mainly due to the former Wilko store in Tipton being vacant for the financial year, causing lost rent and additional costs. A new lease with Worley Stores Ltd commenced in July, including a six-month rent-free period; however, the tenant was responsible for business rates, with annual rent around £80,000 as reflected in the 2024/25 budget. Additional variance resulted from reduced rental income after lease renewals in Seaford (Tesco) and Hereford (Superdrug), reflecting market conditions.

 

  • A £33,000 shortfall in income from public conveniences was reported. A review was planned for September, that would provide an update of the rolling out of charging to all facilities or a review of the fee to ensure cost recovery along with the review of cash-less charging provision.

 

OS.201

Service Performance Report 2024-25 Quarter 4 pdf icon PDF 550 KB

To provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.

 

Purpose

That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 9 July 2025.

 

Cabinet Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

 

Lead Officer

Gemma Moring

Alison Borrett

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.

 

The Leader of the Council and Senior Performance Analyst made the following points:

  • The overall performance of the Council was mixed.
  • The highlights were: Publica phase 2 transitions, Cotswold Home Solar had 27 household completed and 18 with deposits, ‘Strengthening Communities’ events.
  • Areas performing above target: customer satisfaction, planning applications determined within time targets, high-risk food premises inspections, gym membership and Leisure Centre visits.
  • Areas performing below targets were: Affordable homes, missed bin collections.

 

In questioning and discussion the following points were noted:

 

  • UBICO had been fitting the replacement of street signs work around other commitments, indicating a lack of a clear, dedicated process. A written response to Members was offered as a follow up.
  • Delivery of the District Council’s cultural strategy, now reconfigured as a plan, was off target due to a timing issue; the cultural strategy was scheduled for Cabinet consideration on Thursday.
  • It was confirmed that future reports would aim to include specific dates to ensure clarity about the timeframes being referenced.
  • The Director of Communities and Place would consider using temporary staff to address the backlog of 561 planning enforcement cases, subject to budget and suitability.
  • Shared Prosperity Funds must be spent within the year. Future schemes, including potential collaborations with GCC such as the safe crossing project, would be considered on an annual basis to ensure funding was not tied up in undeliverable projects.
  • The waste collection service relied on a single narrow access vehicle, highlighting the need for a backup to prevent future service disruptions.
  • A Member sought clarification on the leisure centres’ monthly site inspection ratings scale and requested separate feedback on user satisfaction and usage specifically for Chipping Camden Leisure Centre. It was confirmed that the service breaks down data by site, and a written response with this information would be provided to the committee.
  • Concerns were raised about cleanliness at leisure sites and a request made for more detailed KPI information on cleanliness in future reports for constructive review. Councillor Hodgkinson, as portfolio holder, was actively engaged with the contractor and monitoring efforts to improve the cleanliness standards of the leisure centres.
  • Freedom of Information requests performance was below target and statutory requirements had been missed. Data would be circulated to update Members on the details.
  • Missed bin collections had increased. Following last year’s round changes, waste collection has mostly stabilised, though missed collections remained above target (101 vs. 80). The Council was working closely with Ubico to address recurring issues and improve customer communication. It was recognised that standards needed to improve, and work was ongoing to achieve this.
  • The new Interim Chief Executive would be reviewing the delivery of the Corporate Plan with officers to ensure expected progress was being made. Where there were delays or blockages, these would be discussed and shared with the Leader and relevant portfolio holders.
  • Some targets were statutory, while the remaining 60-70% were set  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS.201

OS.202

Farming Motion Working Group Update pdf icon PDF 534 KB

Purpose

To report back from the Task & Finish Group the evidence they received from stakeholders during their inquiry into the proposed changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) for farmers and that the messages they recommend are included in the Council’s representations to Government.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In discussing the report, Members made the following points:

  • The government’s proposed changes were well-intentioned and aimed to address inheritance tax avoidance.
  • The main concern highlighted was farmers' difficulty in paying potentially large inheritance tax bills.
  • Broader potential impacts, included: Food security issues, changes to land values and possible disruption to farming practices.
  • It was emphasised that this process was not driven by any political group nor prejudged before it began.
  • Various reports were received and investigated by task and finish group members: Treasury and Lords briefings, additional reports from DEFRA.
  • Five proposed key messages to the government with six alternative policy approaches and seven alternative options included in the report.
  • Succession planning must be carefully developed over time, with agreement from all involved.
  • Farmers earned their income through active farming, whereas wealthy landowners may use farmland primarily as a means to avoid tax. A 20% tax rate did not effectively deter this kind of tax avoidance whereas a 40% Inheritance Tax (IHT) would serve as a stronger deterrent.
  • A review was being requested to consider implementing a system of rollover reliefs.

 

Clarification was sought whether the Task and Finish Group would be proposing a formal recommendation (a specific form of words) or simply presenting the findings for the Council to note.

 

The actions agreed involved putting forward a form of words which was up to the full Council to review, accept or change. The first stages would be to agree the wording of the letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Leader of the Council.

 

The Committee agreed that an updated version of the report would be included in the full Council agenda, allowing councillors to see the outcome of the Task and Finish Group’s work. If the Council agreed that the Leader should write a letter, it could then be drafted based on the contents of that report.

 

Councillor Cunningham proposed accepting the Farming Motion Update and Councillor Harris seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: to RECOMMEND to Council to request that the Leader writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressing concerns that the proposed

changes to Inheritance Tax rules as they relate to farms will have

unintended consequences that could have far reaching implications

for the viability of the farming sector of the Cotswolds.

OS.203

Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees pdf icon PDF 231 KB

Purpose

To receive any 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:

HOSC – No meetings had been held since the last Committee meeting.

GEGSC – a short report was submitted and Members were invited to comment.

OS.204

Work Plan and Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 526 KB

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:

In discussion of the Work Plan and Forward Plan, the following points were raised:

  • Section 5.2 of the Executive Scrutiny Protocol recommended regular meetings between the Chair and Vice Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Leader and Cabinet members to discuss work and forward plans. The first meeting was scheduled for September.
  • A suggestion was made to explore the current state of the hospitality and retail sectors in the Cotswolds, particularly considering recent tax changes that may impact early-career individuals.
  • It was suggested that, two years into the leisure contract, the Committee should hear directly from Freedom Leisure to review contract progress, identify improvements, and discuss the provision at Chipping Campden School.
  • A request was made for an overview of the current parking situation and progress on the emerging parking strategy, current developments and future aspirations for parking.
  • It was suggested that a follow-up discussion regarding Local Government Reorganisation take place sometime after November and that the item be included on a regular basis.
  • It was suggested that a dedicated Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting may be necessary to specifically scrutinise the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) processes.

 

The Deputy CEO confirmed governance structures were in place for LGR and leaders informed, but staff and members lacked clarity on the process. A briefing note from the Interim Chief Executive was suggested to ensure consistency. Staff updates would be shared via the Council website and with members. Scrutiny may have a role in this process.

 

It was noted that there were useful work streams the local authority could consider to support the county’s process regarding potential scrutiny involvement. Overall, scrutiny was seen as having a potentially valuable role, subject to clear guidance from council leadership on its scope.

 

 

Related Pages