Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 545 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 Angus Jenkinson and Clare Bloomer. |
|
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Nick Bridges substituted for Councillor Clare Bloomer. Councillor Clare Turner substituted as Vice-Chair. |
|
|
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 13 April 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on 13 April 2026 were discussed. Councillor David Cunningham proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Clare Turner 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 April 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 the further information received following the previous Committee meeting. Further information was still awaited on the Car-Free Cotswolds Initiative, Cotswold District Council's use of weed killers, and the process for bidding for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds once arrangements were finalised. |
|
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed Simon Harper, the new Head of Elections and Democratic Services. |
|
|
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: A written question from Councillor Jenkinson had been received and answered. The response explained why Cotswold District Council had adopted a different approach to the Spatial Development Strategy from that taken by Stroud District Council. |
|
|
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 made to Cabinet. |
|
|
Local Government Reorganisation - Structural Changes Order Purpose To consider representations to government on aspects of the Structural Changes Order.
Accountable Member Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council.
Report Author Jane Portman, Chief Executive Officer. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to outline the governance, legal framework, and key arrangements for the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order (SCO), and to seek Cabinet’s agreement to submit representations to Government on behalf of Cotswold District Council. The Chair advised members to focus on the following three questions: · Preparing Authority or New Shadow Authority. · Should political balance be applied to the Implementation Executive / Joint Committee? · The name of the new council or councils.
The report was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council and Jane Portman, Chief Executive Officer who highlighted the following points: · Cabinet needed to consider the three proposed scenarios in advance of the Government announcement expected on 16 June. · Not all of the questions for each scenario may ultimately require a response or a formal view to be expressed.
In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted: · There was concern about the capacity of officers and political leaders to respond within the timeframe. · There had been broad consensus at the leaders’ meeting across most of the questions, with potential differences on the preparing vs shadow authority model and the naming of any new authority. · The proposed structure for the Implementation Executive / Joint Committee was six representatives from the County Council and one from each of the district councils in Gloucestershire. Application of political balance would be a matter for the County Council to determine from amongst representatives. · The Implementation Executive / Joint Committee would operate from the point the SCO came into effect until the elections for the new unitary council/s. · In the event of a single unitary authority, the most straightforward name would be “Gloucestershire Unitary.” For a two-unitary model, the proposed names were “East Gloucestershire” and “West Gloucestershire”.
· Initial arrangements would provide two councillors per County Council division, with an intention that during the first term of the new council a boundary review would be undertaken. There would be a move towards single-member divisions at the second election of the new authority, scheduled for 2032.
Recommendations:
1.
Membership of the Implementation Executive / Joint
Committee 2. Naming of New Authorities; That Cabinet note indicative support for: · “Gloucestershire Council” if a single unitary was created. · “East Gloucestershire” and “West Gloucestershire” if a two-unitary model was adopted. · No view was expressed on the Greater Gloucester and Gloucestershire option. 3. Timetable for Response: Given the constrained timetable, Cabinet should prepare a proportionate and focused response to the consultation, concentrating on the most significant issues. |
|
|
Waste and Environment - Service Design Options Purpose This report sets out a package of waste and recycling service design options to support a cohesive, compliant, and efficient approach to service delivery. It enables Cabinet to consider the removal of some services alongside the introduction and simplification of others, recognising that reductions in recycling income can be mitigated by reduced operating costs and operational efficiencies.
The report describes the rationale, impacts and risks associated with: (1) demobilising the Council-provided bring bank service; (2) introducing kerbside collections of Plastic Bags and Wrapping in line with Simpler Recycling requirements, including the proposed approach to resident presentation of material; and (3) moving to the combined collection of paper and card to simplify collections and improve operational resilience.
Accountable Member Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services
Report author Peta Johnson, Head of Waste and Environment
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to describe the rationale, impacts and risks associated with: (1) demobilising the Council-provided “bring bank” service; (2) introducing kerbside collections of plastic bags and wrapping in line with Simpler Recycling requirements, including the proposed approach to resident presentation of material; and (3) moving to the combined collection of paper and card to simplify collections and improve operational resilience.
The report was introduced by Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, and Peta Johnson, Head of Waste and Environment, who highlighted the following points: · Changes to the waste service were proposed to support upcoming vehicle procurement, address legacy arrangements, and prepare for future service harmonisation under Local Government Reorganisation. Changes included removing “bring banks”, not providing bags for the collection of plastic film and wrapping, and introducing smaller residual waste bins for new homes or where replacement bins needed to be provided.
Arising from member questions, the following points were noted:
· The estimated financial impact of the proposed changes was an overall annual benefit of around £10,000.
· Mixing paper and card resulted in some loss of material quality, as it led to downcycling rather than higher-grade paper recycling; however, this was considered in the context of declining paper volumes over time.
· The “bring bank” locations included 24 sites, with 20 currently showing provision, but this was subject to change as a full site survey being carried out (due to be completed by 5 June 2026.
Recommendations: 1. “Bring bank” service That Cabinet request an increase in monitoring / collections at former “bring bank” sites in order to:
2. Collection of plastic bags and wrapping · That Cabinet ensured a communications package was provided to residents explaining that they would be expected to use their own bags for plastic film and wrapping recycling. It was recommended that guidance would be provided to avoid confusion and contamination of recycling streams. The recommendations to Cabinet were proposed by Councillor David Cunningham and seconded by Councillor Ian Watson. This was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee. |
|
|
Overview & Scrutiny Committee Annual Report 2025/26 Purpose To receive the annual report of the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Accountable Member Councillor Gina Blomefield
Report Author Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to receive the annual report for the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The report was introduced by Councillor Gina Blomefield, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
The Chair thanked Democratic Services for their support in producing the report, noting the value added through scrutiny work, including 18 recommendations made to Cabinet over the past year, most of which were accepted or partially accepted. She thanked the Vice Chair and committee members for their contributions and flexibility in managing the workload with additional meetings. She expressed a view that Overview and Scrutiny would play an important role during Local Government Reorganisation. Councillor Michael Vann praised the work of the Chair and his comments were echoed by other members of the committee |
|
|
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: Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Angus Jenkinson The report was presented to Members in his absence.
|
|
|
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: Changes to report dates were highlighted. |
|
|
Matters exempt from publication If the Overview & Scrutiny Committee wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any of the items on the exempt from publication part of the agenda, it will be necessary for the committee to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 on the grounds that their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Overview & Scrutiny Committee may maintain the exemption if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Recommendation That, in accordance with Regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 12 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 as per of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered the exclusion of the press and public for the remaining item of business on the basis that it contained exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Upon being proposed and seconded the Committee voted to approve a resolution to exclude the press and public.
Recommendation: Agreed to exclude the press and public for the remaining items of business in accordance with Regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 12 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 as per of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972
|
|
|
Exempt Annex for Agenda item 15: Asset Management - Out of District Investment Properties Annex A to Asset Management – Out of District Investment Properties report contains exempt information within the meaning of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as it contains information relating to the financial and business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information. The Annex A to the report is therefore not for publication in accordance with Regulation 12 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. A public summary of the decision will be published following determination of the matter.
Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of the report was to seek Cabinet's approval to pursue options for the disposal of out-of-district investment properties. The report was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council and David Stanley, who highlighted the following: · Government policy had changed to discourage or prevent councils from investing in commercial properties outside their own area. · The properties had been purchased when interest rates and market conditions made commercial property investment more attractive. · In hindsight, a more diversified investment strategy would have been preferable, rather than limiting investment to the retail sector.
Arising from members’ questions, the following points were noted: · The approval sought of Cabinet was only to test the market and understand buyer interest and value. There was no obligation to proceed with a sale. · Annual net book valuations had been assessed as at 31 March 2026, and market appraisals had been undertaken within the last 18 months. Agents would be used to soft test the market. · The recommendation was to actively market all three out-of-district properties with a view to disposal, and any acceptable offers would return to Cabinet/Council for a final decision. · If eventually sold, the proceeds would become capital receipts, which could be used to help finance the Council's capital programme rather than day-to-day revenue spending. · The properties were outside the district, and some Members felt there was little strategic benefit in retaining assets outside the Council's area simply to generate income. · Local Government Reorganisation - If the properties were not sold before the new authority was established, decisions would transfer to the successor authority and might require additional consultation. Recommendations: To support the recommendations in the report to Cabinet. |