Skip to main content

Agenda and draft minutes

Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday, 2nd February, 2026 4.00 pm

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

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

OS.288

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 Joe Harris and Michael Vann.

OS.289

Substitute Members

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Ian Watson substituted for Councillor Joe Harris.

OS.290

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Jenkinson stated that they had been active in support of local community economic development but had no pecuniary interest.

OS.291

Minutes pdf icon PDF 584 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2026.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting on 5 January 2026 were discussed. Councillor David Cunningham proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Nick Bridges seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2026.

OS.292

Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 386 KB

To consider actions outstanding from minutes of previous meetings.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There was a request for confirmation that the statement regarding delays in council tax rebates was up to date, given the importance of this issue for residents. A written confirmation would follow.

 

OS.293

Chair's Announcements

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Following the last Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting, the Committee had not been satisfied with the level of detail provided in the case for proceeding with the Ubico waste fleet replacement programme, and as a result had neither supported the recommendations nor proposed alternatives. The Chair attended the Cabinet meeting and noted that the supporting evidence had been expanded to better inform decision-making. The Chair received helpful updates from the Head of Waste and Environment and an apology from the Chief Executive Officer for the lack of detail in the original report.

 

OS.294

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.

OS.295

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.

OS.296

Report back on recommendations

There are no recommendations from Cabinet for the Committee to respond to.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no recommendations to Cabinet at the previous meeting. 

OS.297

Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees pdf icon PDF 39 KB

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:

An update had been received from Councillor Neill on the HOSC meeting. Her update was described as informative and useful in keeping Members informed about developments in maternity services and plans to increase community support for people with dementia and other learning difficulties.

 

There had been no meeting of GESSC prior to the Committee meeting.

OS.298

The Retail and Hospitality Sectors in the Cotswold District pdf icon PDF 577 KB

Purpose

To report on the health of and the challenges faced by the retail and hospitality sectors in the district.

 

Cabinet Member

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson

 

Lead Officer

Paul James

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to provide an overview of the state of the retail and hospitality sectors within the district.

 

The report was introduced by Paul James, Economic Development Lead, who highlighted the following points:

  • Findings showed multiple combined pressures on the retail and hospitality sector, although district vacancy rates remained comparatively low.
  • The report had been shared with County Economic Development colleagues and business groups.
  • Town centres initiative work was underway in Lechlade, Moreton-in-Marsh and Tetbury using UK Shared Prosperity Fund support and specialist consultants to analyse vacancies and barriers to occupancy.
  • Early findings indicated some vacant units had not been actively marketed.
  • The Council’s influence over national policy and taxation pressures was limited, but possible actions included lobbying government and reviewing pavement licence fees.
  • Concern was noted about the lack of confirmed replacement funding for the Shared Prosperity Fund and Rural England Prosperity Fund after the end of the financial year.

 

Councillor Lisa Spivey arrived at 16:15.

 

In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:

 

  • It was suggested that the report gave insufficient attention to long-term community resilience, including the impacts of unsustainable tourism and environmental pressures. There were concerns raised that high tourism levels in some areas affected retail mix, affordability and year-round viability of shops providing essential services for local residents.
  • The officer explained that the report was intended as a high-level snapshot of the retail and hospitality sectors, which had been considered important for employment and local services, rather than a detailed resilience assessment.
  • The officer advised that detailed analysis of retail mix had only been undertaken in selected towns through targeted studies, and that wider consideration would be more appropriately addressed through the Local Plan process.
  • Clarification was provided that the reported 50% increase in shoplifting since 2020 referred to the number of incidents rather than value; Gloucestershire rates remained lower than many areas, and retailer cooperation and shared alert schemes were identified as key measures to help reduce theft.
  • Whilst the report focused on town centres, hospitality and retail businesses outside town centres also required support, particularly more isolated businesses. The UK Shared Prosperity Funding had enabled the Growth Hub to deliver district-wide outreach support but this service was at risk due to the existing funding ending, with some continued support potentially through recently approved strategic economic development funding.
  • It was clarified that the current town centre initiative covering three towns was already planned and funded through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, and whilst it would produce recommendations for follow-up action, no additional consultancy work had yet been commissioned.
  • There were currently no plans for fully integrated development plans for town centres, but the Town Centre Studies in the report recommended establishing locally supported, place-based partnerships in each town to agree and lead improvements.
  • A draft version of the full report had been circulated to the relevant town councils for comment, and the final version would be published once amendments were made.
  • A feasibility study into a Business Improvement District  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS.298

OS.299

Budget 2026-27 and Medium Term Financial Strategy pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Purpose

To present the Revenue Budget for 2026/27, Capital Programme and Medium-Term Financial Strategy for 2026/27 to 2029/30.

 

Cabinet Member

Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance

 

Lead Officer

David Stanley, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and S151

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

The report was introduced by Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, and David Stanley, Deputy Chief Executive Officer.

  • The position reflected the latest published update but was subject to change due to two factors: the final local government finance settlement and ongoing reconciliation of the Publica contract sum.
  • The key message was that the current position was significantly better than anticipated.
  • Core spending power, which included council tax, revenue support grant, and transitional funding, was higher for 2026/27 than 2025/26 and remained higher for 2027/28 and 2028/29, with transitional protection amounting to approximately £5.2 million in the final year; 2029/30 fell outside the current spending review period and posed a potential concern for the council and the successor unitary authority.
  • The Council Tax referendum level was set at 5 percent.
  • The Budget assumed a very cautious estimate for business rates retention (£1.255m), compared with over £5m retained in the current year.
  • Extended Producer Responsibilities reduced to 60% of 2026/27 level from 2027/28.
  • Treasury management income for next year was forecast at £1.2m.
  • The level of Revenue Contribution to Capital Outlay (RCCO) was £1.547 million.

 

In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:

  • Savings included in the MTFS came from existing savings and the transformation programme developed with Cabinet, which focused on measures judged credible and deliverable; further transformation work would continue next year led by Helen Martin, Director of Communities and Place,Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, and Councillor Tristan Wilkinson, Cabinet Member for Transformation, to ensure continued financial sustainability if local government reorganisation was delayed.
  • The three £750k unavoidable growth figures were an estimate of additional charges linked to the new waste fleet contract. Although they appeared as a revenue cost paid out, they were offset by a corresponding deferred capital receipt back to the Council, making them broadly neutral in overall financial impact.
  • The £200,000 loan referred to the remaining balance of the Council’s Climate Bond borrowing (originally £500,000 taken out a few years earlier), which was the only current borrowing and was scheduled to be fully repaid by the end of the 2027–28 financial year.
  • It was noted that the Council had maintained a low level of debt because past capital programmes had largely been funded from internal resources and capital receipts rather than borrowing. Whilst low historic interest rates may have presented limited opportunities, no viable capital schemes requiring borrowing had been in place, and this cautious approach had avoided revenue risk.
  • Although the Council had previously funded capital activity through housing stock receipts, moving back into direct social housing ownership was not considered practical in the remaining period before Local Government Reorganisation. Whilst options had been explored, becoming a stock-holding authority or creating a housing company would have required significant scale, time, and financial risk, with partnership working with registered providers such as Bromford preferred.
  • The listed savings, including projected car  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS.299

OS.300

Work Plan and Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 505 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:

The Chair suggested that the upcoming Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) report, which allocates additional funding for local communities from a levy on future developments, be considered by Overview & Scrutiny in March 2026 ahead of Cabinet.

 

Councillor Turner queried why the Ecological Emergency update remained “date to be confirmed” on the work plan, noting that related items were scheduled for the Cabinet meeting in March and asking why the update had not been aligned with that. The Head of Democratic and Electoral Services suggested the delay may have been due to staff sickness but indicated a written response would be provided.

 

Councillor Angus Jenkinson highlighted the importance of the agricultural sector, noting recent DEFRA findings on the ecological crisis linked to farming, and suggested the Council consider how this sector could be supported to address ecological, economic, and climate outcomes.

Councillor Jenkinson suggested that, given the scale of the agricultural sector and the current ecological and economic pressures on farmers, the Council should consider allocating resources or commissioning expert support to examine and address these issues, similar to previous investments made for other non-statutory but important projects.

 

It was noted that a work plan meeting would be arranged to discuss this issue further and to gather feedback from Cabinet on its usefulness, with the aim of supporting both Cabinet and Full Council.

 

 

Related Pages