Agenda and minutes
PDF 549 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: Apologies were received from Councillors Lisa Spivey and Jon Wareing. |
|
|
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 declaration of interests were made. |
|
|
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on 13 October 2025 were discussed. Councillor Micheal Vann proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Angus Jenkison seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2025. |
|
|
Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting To consider actions outstanding from minutes of previous meetings. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed the confirmation that housing association providers will report annually on key areas including property maintenance, decarbonisation plans, sales of affordable homes (both on the open market and through right to buy), and the delivery of new affordable homes. Bromford Housing had provided councillors with contact details for the teams working in their neighbourhoods. The breakdown of returns from the Council invested funds was highlighted, which showed a healthy overall return of 4.8%. |
|
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed representatives from Freedom Leisure to the meeting and looked forward to hearing from the organisation. The car parking strategy was recognised as clear and detailed. Members were reminded of the additional Overview & Scrutiny meeting scheduled for 1 December, arranged to ensure that several important matters could be addressed before 2026, and appreciation was expressed to committee members for agreeing to attend. |
|
|
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: Councillor Hall-Wilson had provided a question to Freedom Leisure in advance but confirmed that she was content for it to be deferred and addressed when Freedom Leisure presented their report. |
|
|
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: Councillor Jenkinson reported that the Committee’s recommendations had been submitted to Cabinet. He attended the Cabinet meeting as Vice-Chair to represent the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation regarding the Local Plan consultation. |
|
|
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.
Cabinet Forward Plan to follow.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and the Cabinet Forward Plan were considered by the Committee. |
|
|
Leisure Contract - Freedom Leisure Purpose Freedom Leisure will be present to respond to Members questions and to give a general update on their leisure centres in the district.
Freedom Leisure Representative: Lee Thomas and Nick Charlton
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed the representatives from Freedom Leisure to the meeting.
Nick Charlton -Area Manager - Cotswold District and Gloucester. Lee Thomas – Regional Manager - Wales and West region. Jeremy Rowe – Operations Director - England and Wales.
Councillor Paul Hodgkinson, Cabinet Member for Health, Culture and Visitor Experience, introduced Freedom Leisure who assumed responsibility on 1 August 2023 for the three leisure centres at Cirencester, Bourton on the Water and Chipping Campden, as well as the Corinium Museum. He recorded his thanks to Freedom Leisure for their work since taking on the contract, noting that the transition had been challenging due to the condition of services inherited from the previous provider.
The following points were made:
The Area Manager answered submitted questions from Members: The reflection on lessons learned included introducing “Meet the Manager” sessions earlier in the partnership to engage customers from the start, particularly during service transitions. The same approach applied to staff teams, ensuring early involvement and smoother adaptation to changes. Parking at the Cirencester leisure centre could be challenging at times but Freedom Leisure acknowledged that the car park was managed by the Council, and any resolution or improvements would be addressed through meetings. The Area Manager noted that managerial support for younger team members was in place. Freedom Leisure confirmed that duty managers and general managers provided regular one-to-one meetings and appraisals, ensuring development and support were consistently available across all team members. Internal procedures were followed to address any specific issues that arose. The small teaching pool was maintained at a higher temperature than the main pool (29?°C) in accordance with the contractual arrangement with the Council. Freedom Leisure employed their own cleaning staff and had increased the number of cleaners since taking over operations. They reviewed customer feedback internally, adjusting rotas or adding hours where trends indicated a need.
Councillor Hall-Wilson responded to the representatives by asking whether the number of people paying to use the smaller teaching pool could be better controlled by reception staff to prevent overcrowding and long waits leading to babies and toddlers getting cold. Freedom Leisure confirmed that they would try to improve the booking system to control the foot flow.
Freedom Leisure delivered outreach classes in Northleach and Weston-Sub-Edge, for those who may not attend leisure centres. They also collaborated with the NHS on health referral programs.
In questioning and discussion, the ... view the full minutes text for item OS.257 |
|
|
Car Parking Strategy Purpose To present Cotswold District Council’s Parking Strategy for 2025–2028 which outlines the approach to managing and delivering off-street parking services over the next three years. It is designed to meet user needs while supporting the council’s strategic objectives through to 2028.
Cabinet Member Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
Lead Officer Susan Hughes
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to presentCotswold District Council’s Parking Strategy for 2025–2028 which outlined the approach to managing and delivering off-street parking services over the next three years. It was designed to meet user needs while supporting the Council’s strategic objectives through to 2028.
The report was introduced by Councillor Paul Hodgkinson, Cabinet Member for Health, Culture and Visitor Experience, and Susan Hughes, Business Manager for Support and Advice who made the following points:
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:
Members raised concerns about the inability to pay for parking with cash if machines failed. The Officer explained that customers could call a number to pay but attempts to allow payment via local shops were unreliable and impractical due to distance and potential queues. There were no plans to reintroduce cash payments.
Analysis of parking in Tetbury and Cirencester showed there was overall capacity across sites, though central car parks were often oversubscribed. The Transport and Connectivity Plan emphasised active travel.
The Whiteway Car Park break clause was set for 2028, coinciding with the abolition of the current Council. Efforts had been made to boost season ticket sales by reducing prices, but feedback indicated that people were unwilling to walk the longer distance.
In discussing the increase of the tourism levy, it was noted that Stow-on-the-Wold had seen a significant increase in tourist numbers. Whilst there was no direct administrative cost for the levy, there was a hidden cost to the Council in that VAT must be accounted for, and fees collected must be reconciled against the amounts available to spend.
Whilst the promotion of bikes, including e-bikes, was welcomed, some bike racks remained unused. This may be due to their locations being outside town centres, often in other car parks, rather than in central areas.
A member raised a question about the Moreton-in-Marsh Transport Hub and car parking proposals, referring to a 2018–2019 Church of England plan to provide 150–250 spaces on a site, funded by the Church with support from the Business Association and GWR. The Member asked whether officers could explore alternative ways to implement the ... view the full minutes text for item OS.258 |
|
|
Local Government Reorganisation Proposal 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 17th November 2025, Council on 26th November 2025 and Extraordinary Cabinet on 26th 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 districts.
Cabinet Member Councillor Mike Evemy
Lead Officer Jane Portman
Additional documents:
Minutes: Purpose To note the two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire that had been developed collaboratively with all seven Gloucestershire councils.
The Chair suggested that call-in rules be disapplied for this item, as the timeline leading up to the government deadline for submissions did not allow for five clear days between the Cabinet decision being taken and being implemented. The report was however subject to pre-decision scrutiny and would be considered by full Council before Cabinet. It was noted that the decision on whether Gloucestershire would move to one or two unitary authorities ultimately rested with central government, although all local authorities would be able to submit their preferences to government.
Councillor Mike Evemy, The Leader of the Council, and Jane Portman, Interim Chief Executive Officer, introduced the report. Two options were presented for consideration. The Greater Gloucester proposal promoted by Gloucester City Council was not being considered by the Council, as the necessary information had been submitted too late and officers had collaboratively developed the other two proposals.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:
The process of developing the two proposals had been robust, with all seven councils working closely together and sharing a strong, common evidence base.
Population change figures were based on ONS 2023 mid-year population estimates, projected forward to 2047. These projections reflected ONS-predicted population growth only and did not factor future housing delivery or associated population increases.
Gloucestershire had received £266,000 from the Government to support preparatory work, which had covered communications and engagement activity and consultancy services provided by Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC). Additional direct costs to the Council had been minimal, though there was significant officer time involved, representing an “opportunity cost”. The Government had indicated that no further funding would be provided to support the cost of transition.
If the Minister opted for two unitary authorities, the demand for services would differ between the two authorities. Current disaggregation of Gloucestershire County Council funding indicated a potential deficit for the West and a surplus for the East. Future funding allocations would be determined by the Government and could be adjusted to reflect these differences.
The PWC model used data provided by all Chief Finance Officers, with CDC data drawn from the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and considered robust, although the robustness of data from the six other councils could not be confirmed. The Pixel model was employed to interpret the Fair Funding Review 2.0 estimates and their potential impact. Funding estimates were indicative and may change over time.
It was likely that a single authority would hold any transition budget and be accountable for its use. Governance arrangements would involve Chief Executives, Leaders, and Chief Finance Officers to ensure that funds were spent only on essential elements of the transition plan. The budget, estimated at £21–24 million, would be phased over time. Whilst individual councils would not scrutinise each expenditure, there would be a clear reporting mechanism to ensure the Council’s contribution was used in line with the ... view the full minutes text for item OS.259 |
|
|
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: The Chair recommended that the Committee read the report produced by Councillor Dilys Neill from the recent HOSC meeting. |