Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 98 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 for absence were received for Councillors David Cunningham, Naomi Bloomer, Lisa Spivey and Claire Bloomer. |
|
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Len Wilkins substituted for Councillor David Cunningham. |
|
|
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 meetings held on 29 June and 3 August 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on 29 June 2026 were discussed. Councillor Tony Slater proposed accepting the 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 29 June 2026.
The minutes of the meeting on 3 August 2026 were discussed. Councillor Jon Wareing proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Angus Jenkinson seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee. RESOLVED: to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2026. |
|
|
Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting To consider actions outstanding from minutes of 29 June 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The matters arising from the meeting on 29 June were noted. |
|
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair thanked Claire Turner for her contribution to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and advised that a replacement member would be appointed following the Blockley by-election. The Climate Change report had been deferred to November. It was noted that UBICO would attend the next Overview and Scrutiny meeting and would welcome any complex questions being submitted in advance. |
|
|
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 Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 June and 3 August 2026. Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Jon Wareing, responding to the Deputy Leader’s comments on the recommendation to Cabinet, clarified that his proposal was not specifically about tourism management. He explained that it was intended to address the wider issue of community stewardship and how existing communities could manage the impacts of over-intensity of use, including visitors, traffic and other pressures.
The Chair requested the quarterly updates on planning enforcement, particularly the backlog clearance strategy, be shared with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. |
|
|
Council Performance report Q1 2026-2027 Purpose To set out the financial and service performance, and the strategic risk register for Q1 2026/27
Accountable Member Councillor Mike Evemy - Leader of the Council
Report Author David Stanley - Deputy Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to set out the financial and service performance, and the strategic risk register for Q1 2026/27.
The report was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council and Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, and David Stanley, who highlighted the following points: • The Leader advised that the report included information relating to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and advised that the Secretary of State had announced that LGR had been paused in Gloucestershire. • Financial performance in the first quarter was broadly a continuation of the previous year’s position. Car park income was around £400,000 above budget. • Planning fee income remained positive, reflecting a high level of planning applications, although this was placing additional pressure on the service and required agency staff to cover vacancies. • The Council’s vacancy factor was forecast to be around £150,000 below the budgeted level. • The Ubico contract was showing a £171,000 adverse variation, largely due to increased fuel costs. • There was a potential funding risk relating to Disabled Facilities Grants. • Purchase orders had been raised for new waste vehicles, with a lengthy lead-in time expected. • Cabinet approval was sought for £27,000 from the Cotswold Market Infrastructure balance to fund new pool covers at Chipping Campden and Bourton-on-the-Water Schools. • Delegated authority was being sought from the Cabinet to complete the disposal of the Council’s property in Hereford.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: Waste and Recycling • The £40,000 variance for waste and recycling receptacles reflected insufficient budget for the level of demand rather than an overspend. Usage was comparable with other districts and developer contributions were sought for new developments. • The £171,000 forecast overspend on the Ubico contract was primarily due to increased fuel costs, with some staffing pressures also identified. • Officers acknowledged that there were wider, systemic issues affecting the Ubico contract, with the Council retaining the financial and service performance risks. Measures such as reinstating a fuel bunker could reduce costs through bulk purchasing, enable the use of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil and provide greater resilience to fuel shortages. The fuel bunker was expected to be operational by the end of the calendar year, subject to planning and installation requirements. Officers highlighted the need for Ubico to work more proactively with the Council to identify opportunities to mitigate costs and share good practice. • Most purchase orders for the replacement Ubico fleet had been raised, with the electric vehicle order pending confirmation of suitable charging facilities. The £6 million budget included an element of risk provision, and vehicle costs were currently below the amount budgeted. Planning Enforcement • A member of staff had been commissioned to undertake a review of the planning enforcement backlog, including how cases could be triaged and the backlog reduced while preventing it from increasing. It was expected that this work would result in improved enforcement performance over the following two to three quarters. • Monthly planning enforcement reports could be ... view the full minutes text for item OS.376 |
|
|
Asset Management Strategy Update Purpose To provide the Overview & Scrutiny Committee with a report of the Cotswold District Council’s Property & Assets Portfolio.
Accountable Member Cllr Patrick Coleman - Cabinet Member for Property & Assets
Report Author Alan Hope - Head of Strategic Housing, Property & Assets Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to provide the Overview & Scrutiny Committee with a report of the Cotswold District Council’s Property & Assets Portfolio.
The report was introduced by Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, and Alan Hope, Head of Strategic Housing, Property and Assets and Harry Penman, Estates and Valuation lead, who highlighted the following points: • Council assets were managed in line with the 2024 Asset Management Strategy, whilst taking account of the potential impact of Local Government Reorganisation. Decisions were made with regard to the future unitary authority and that arrangements had been developed to avoid inappropriate disposal of assets. The recent Government announcement had created further uncertainty over the future approach.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:
Many Members considered that the asset schedule would be more useful if it included additional information such as market and book values, income generated, capital expenditure and the purpose and strategic value of individual assets.
Members supported the development of a more systematic approach to the management of Council assets, including thoughtful classification of assets and relevant information to support strategic decision-making by officers and Cabinet. Officers advised that bringing information together from existing systems was possible, but that a fully integrated database would require significant time and resources and was not considered feasible in the short term, particularly given the uncertainty around LGR. It was suggested that a proportionate approach should focus on strategically significant and higher-value assets, while considering how a more effective system could be developed over the longer term.
Members also highlighted examples of assets where their purpose or management was unclear and emphasised the need for a more comprehensive, multidimensional asset strategy.
A request to identify the ward that each asset is located was received. Concern was raised that where a Council asset generated significant revenue from tourism, there could be a perceived conflict between maximising income from the asset and the impact of its use on the local community. It was suggested that greater clarity on the revenue generated and the wider community impact would be important should the matter be subject to further challenge.
Officers advised that further information could be provided on individual assets, including capital values, income and the strategic approach to their management. There had been a focus on addressing compliance issues identified through internal audit, alongside work to identify assets for potential disposal.
Officers explained that the disposal of the Hereford property was progressing with a preferred bidder and was expected to be brought to Cabinet for approval to proceed. The other two out-of-district investment properties were being actively marketed. The value achieved for the Hereford property was above its net book value but below the £1 million threshold.
Councillor Jenkinson proposed that Cabinet consider developing a more comprehensive system for classifying and managing Council assets, bringing together information such as value, income, use, costs and future options. He suggested that this would support more informed strategic decisions and improve efficiency, including in the context ... view the full minutes text for item OS.377 |
|
|
Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees Purpose To receive any verbal updates on the work of external scrutiny bodies:
Gloucestershire Economy, Climate Change and Waste Scrutiny – Cllr Angus Jenkinson Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee – Cllr Dilys Neill Joint-Scrutiny Panel, LGR – Cllrs Gina Blomefield and Angus Jenkinson
Additional documents: Minutes: Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Dilys Neill Councillor Neill was thanked for her HOSC report, which was noted as providing useful information on local health services and supporting communication between health providers and the Council. Councillor Jenkinson highlighted the position regarding midwifery provision and the potential impact of consolidating services in Gloucester. He suggested that consideration be given to recruiting midwives to work across the county, including from local hospitals, which could improve access for local mothers and support recruitment and retention.
Gloucestershire Joint Scrutiny Panel – Councillor Gina Blomefield The Chair advised that the Panel had held an initial meeting to agree its terms of reference, with a Chair appointed. A draft work plan had been prepared, but that this would be reviewed in light of recent developments. |
|
|
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 Committee Work Plan was noted. |