Agenda and minutes
PDF 533 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 for absence. |
|
|
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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 7 July and 8 July 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 7 and 8 July 2025 were discussed. The minutes were reviewed for clarity in relation to a query on the funding required to address the budget deficit for 2022/23 and 2023/24, and were amended. Councillor Jenkinson proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Slater seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED: to APPROVE the minutes of the meetings held on 7 and 8 July 2025.
|
|
|
Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting To consider actions outstanding from minutes of previous meetings. Additional documents: Minutes: Actions from previous meetings included:
|
|
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair made the following announcements: · The latest work plan included invitations to Ubico and Freedom Leisure. · A report on the impact of tax changes on local businesses would be presented in March 2026. · The Local Plan report was added to the October meeting agenda and it was proposed less urgent items to be deferred to an additional meeting 1 December 2025 2pm The additional meeting, with a 2pm start time, was proposed by Councillor David Cunningham and seconded by Councillor Michael Vann.
RESOLVED: The Committee agreed the meeting 1 December 2025 at 2pm.
|
|
|
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 Cabinet had agreed all of the Committee’s recommendations except for the enforcement recommendation, which was partially agreed. Enforcement officers would keep Members informed of ward activity within confidentiality constraints.
|
|
|
Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 1 Purpose A report setting out the first budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.
Recommendation That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 4 September 2025.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to set out the first budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.
The Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Patrick Coleman, and the Deputy Chief Executive, David Stanley introduced the report. They raised the following points: · Cabinet would consider four recommendations, including reviewing and noting Q1 financial performance, which forecasted a £734,000 surplus. Key variations included delayed commercial property rental income (£61,000 adverse), higher development management fees (£249,000 positive), and Treasury management income. · Risks flagged included the street services review savings and potential variability in development management fees; 50% of additional planning fee income would be set aside to mitigate appeal risks. · Recommendations 2–4 sought Cabinet endorsement of the budget management approach, strengthened vacancy oversight, and preparing for future financial challenges including local government reorganisation. · A correction to paragraph 4.36 noted one further interest rate cut was expected in 2025 (to 3.75%), with some risk of delay due to inflation and the energy price cap.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: · Treasury management income was higher than the budget forecast due to a cautious approach when setting the budget, anticipating interest rate reductions and limited investable cash; first-quarter performance reflected this prudence, with some short-term investments performing differently than expected, and a detailed review of individual funds would be provided. · Interest rates on investments varied: Bank of England 5%, money market funds slightly lower, and pooled funds 3.5–4%. Prudential borrowing costs currently ranged from 4.5–6.3% depending on term, and borrowing strategies were tailored to the asset’s lifespan, costs, and the capital programme, which included provision for the waste and recycling fleet. · Heads of service were expected to take action on identified budget variations, with performance management in place to monitor this. Where change was not possible, directors were expected to identify alternative ways to manage the variation. · The cemeteries service was underperforming last year due to lower demand and historical under-recovery of costs. Fees were reviewed and increased to align with neighbouring authorities. The bereavement manager was reviewing service costs, while comparative data for local crematoria would be provided to the Committee. · The contract lawyer post remained vacant and was not expected to be filled. The reason and the impact on shared services across the three councils would be shared at a future meeting. · The financial modelling of public conveniences considered contract, maintenance, and utility costs, but did not assign a value to individual usage. Closing facilities was not expected to significantly reduce usage. · Town and parish councils were consulted on taking over public conveniences. One council had expressed interest in taking on a facility, while others had been notified that charging has been implemented across facilities. Discussions with interested councils were ongoing. · The APSE street cleaning review had identified ways to deliver the service more efficiently. Savings may not be fully realised this year, but changes would focus on optimising service delivery rather than reducing quality. Cabinet would consider recommendations and service specifications before taking decisions. · The APSES review highlighted ... view the full minutes text for item OS.222 |
|
|
Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 1 Purpose To provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.
Recommendation That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 4 September 2025.
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, Councillor Mike Evemy, and Lead Performance analyst, Gemma Moreing, made the following points: · Positive performances included council tax and business rates income, and processing planning applications on time. · Areas below target included processing times for council tax support and housing benefit changes, planning appeals allowed (Q1 showed 50% of appeals lost vs. 20% last year), and the delivery of affordable homes, partly due to developer delays and Thames Water issues at Down Ampney.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: · There was limited feedback on cleanliness at Chipping Camden Leisure Centre and members questioned whether feedback cards fully captured customer experience at the three leisure centres operated by Freedom Leisure. Officers would check the progress toward more robust reporting. · Producing quarterly service performance reports took around four weeks per quarter to collate and review. Operational improvements were driven by regular dashboards and ongoing monitoring rather than overview reports. · Delays in processing council tax support changes were due to a temporary pause in applications, creating a backlog. Performance was now improving, with processing times in July at 3.5 days though cumulative metrics meant that overall tolerance may not be achieved until quarter three. · The Spine Road crossing project was on hold because the intended government REPF funding could not be secured in time. Updates were requested by the Committee. · The Waterloo car park was now in a designated flood zone, so plans for a multi-storey car park there had been removed. Future use of the site would be considered as part of the Cirencester town centre masterplan and the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation. · An all-member briefing on planning enforcement was planned for September. · Members received regular updates on planning appeals, including whether decisions were delegated or made by Committee. The Council recognised that overturns could be costly, so additional funds were allocated to cover appeal costs and ensure adequate legal representation. · There was a request for a follow up on the biodiversity indicator for the Cotswold Lakes Nature Recovery Plan, as the six-monthly review had no status or update currently provided. · Clarification of the process for reporting and supporting rough sleepers was sought from the homelessness team. · Affordable housing delivery remained below target, largely due to factors beyond the Council’s control, including developer viability negotiations and delays in project execution. Historical averages since the 2018 Local Plan showed around 125 completions per year on average. · Solar PV support under the “Make My House Green” scheme saw 27 homes installing solar panels with a further 18 in progress. This was out of a total of 46,109 dwellings in the district. Bromford housing installations were not included in these figures and further information was sought on the installation of other homes across the District.
Break 18:22 – 18:30 Councillors Tony Slater and Lisa Spivey left the meeting.
|
|
|
Corporate Plan 2024-2028 Update Purpose The extant Corporate Plan was agreed last year and there have been significant changes nationally and locally which are reflected in the refreshed Corporate Plan.
Recommendation That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 4 September 2025.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to receive the refreshed Corporate Plan for the period 2025 through to 2028.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy, and the Head of Economic Development and Communities, Joseph Walker, introduced the report and made the following points: · There had been significant changes including potential local government reorganisation (LGR) and the transfer of services back from Publica since the last Corporate Plan. · The plan assumed the Council would cease on 1 April 2028 (vesting day for new councils), though timelines may change depending on government delivery. · A new priority, planning for the future, was added to reflect LGR and the Council’s transformation agenda. · The updated plan focused on achievable actions, streamlined business-as-usual items, and aligned with current circumstances.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: · The phrase “business focused” in the Council values was questioned. The intent was to convey professionalism, efficiency, and value for money, and it was agreed to review the wording to better reflect this. · The “Preparing for the Future” section was discussed in relation to local government reorganisation. The challenges for rural communities, including reduced councillor representation, were acknowledged, with ongoing work outlined to address these, including member briefings and engagement with town and parish councils. · The importance of community leadership and the viability of local services in a unitary authority context was emphasised. It was acknowledged that while engagement with town and parish councils was possible, non-statutory services risked being deprioritised once absorbed into a larger authority. Careful consideration of which services to hand over was highlighted as a key focus in preparing for the future. · The importance of the farming community in the Cotswolds was noted for its economic contribution and role in addressing climate and ecological challenges. Officers would consider recognising farmers in future planning and the Council’s transition work. · The current fleet replacement programme was discussed. It was acknowledged that vehicle replacement must balance financial cost, carbon impact, service continuity, and future opportunities under local government reorganisation. · The impact of tourism on certain communities, particularly Bourton-on-the-Water and Bibury was highlighted, with concerns about “over-tourism” affecting residents’ quality of life and access to local services. It was acknowledged that while tourism supported the wider economy, the effects were uneven and some villages experienced significant impacts. Measures such as a car park levy had been introduced to mitigate pressures, and the Council continued to support community well-being through local initiatives and voluntary organisations.
|
|
|
Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees 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 David Fowles
Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Angus Jenkinson reported that the last Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee meeting was cancelled, so no report was available. A draft fifth version of the county economic strategy was circulated to members for information, noting it was not a final version.
A Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee update was received from Councillor David Fowles who highlighted the following key points: · Key campaigns discussed included: Stay Well This Winter, Click or Call First, Pharmacy First, and No Place Like Home. · The county population was projected to rise from 682,000 to 732,000 by 2030, increasing pressure on health services. The challenges noted included long-term conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes), mental health pressures, corridor care in hospitals, backlog maintenance (e.g. Cheltenham Hospital), and budget pressures. Positives included reduced ambulance handover times, high school immunisation rates, strong post-discharge follow-up, and the Trust being a high-rated employer.
|
|
|
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 updated work plan would be published to capture the meeting changes discussed under Chair’s Announcements.
|