Items
| No. |
Item |
OS.205 |
Apologies
To receive any apologies for
absence. The quorum for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is 3
members.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Apologies for late attendance
were received from Councillor Lisa Spivey. Apologies for absence were
received for Councillor Jon Waring.
|
OS.206 |
Substitute Members
To note details of any
substitution arrangements in place for the meeting.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Ian Watson
substituted for Councillor Jon Waring.
|
OS.207 |
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.
|
OS.208 |
Chair's Announcements
To receive any announcements
from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Chair thanked Members for
attending the second meeting of the week. It was noted that Geraldine LeConte, Assistant
Director of Planning Services, had been substituted by Harrison
Bowley, Head of Planning Services.
|
OS.209 |
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.210 |
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.211 |
Local Plan Update  PDF 1 MB
Purpose
That the Committee scrutinises
the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to
Cabinet on 9 July 2025.
Cabinet Member
Councillor Juliet
Layton
Lead Officers
Geraldine LeCointe
Jo Symons
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The purpose of the report was
to confirm the way forward for the Local Plan Update.
The Cabinet Member for Housing
and Planning highlighted the following:
- It was proposed to
merge the Partial Update of the Local Plan, which was nearly
complete, with the Development Strategy and Site Allocation Plan to
progress towards Regulation 19.
- It was noted that the
plan was due for submission in December 2026 and adoption in 2027.
Without an up-to-date Local Plan and housing land supply during
this period, the Council would be vulnerable to speculative
development, delayed building of affordable homes, S106 agreements
and strategic housing.
In questioning and discussion,
it was noted that:
- The merger of the
existing Local Plan work with the new development strategy was not
expected to require additional budget. Planned work, including
evidence gathering, consultation, and examination (e.g. Inspector
fees, legal advice, and staffing), was expected to be funded from
the existing £1 million Local Plan reserve and a
£300,000 MHCLG grant.
- In response to
queries about the £215,000 allocated for Stage 2 of the
Moreton-in-Marsh Feasibility Study, it was confirmed that Stage 1
was underway, and the need for Stage 2 would be based on its
findings.
- The Local Plan
Oversight Board remained within Cabinet. Whilst broader
representation was acknowledged, it was considered that existing
Cabinet Members provided a wide range of relevant skills and
experience.
- The Oversight Board
would provide regular updates to Overview &
Scrutiny.
- Confidence remained
that the Local Plan timescale could be met, as significant work had
been completed. A full-time project manager was being appointed,
with regular coordination meetings planned with the County Council
and National Highways. The Planning Advisory Service was ensuring
sufficient inspector capacity for the examination.
- The Council would
work with the Cotswold District Council communication team to
ensure resident engagement was meaningful and well-timed. Holding
public meetings before site viability was confirmed had led to
unnecessary costs and staff pressure. Communications regarding the
Regulation 19 document would be available for public
viewing.
- A communications
strategy was being developed with the communications team to
support the Regulation 18 consultation. The strategy would ensure
meaningful engagement was adequately resourced.
- The commitment to
delivering affordable homes was reflected in the Regulation 18
policies, which included a 40% affordable housing target. Until the
Local Plan was adopted, final decisions on green initiatives and
the volume, location, and delivery of affordable housing may be
subject to factors beyond the Council’s control.
- The creation of a
Cotswold National Park had been rejected to retain local control
over development, housing, and planning. Protection continued under
the Cotswold National Landscape as per the revised National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
- Concerns were noted
about development in 16% of the district. Evidence to meet the
target of 1,036 homes per year was currently insufficient and would
be examined by a planning inspector. Discussions with neighbouring
authorities continued on unmet housing needs, and future
Gloucestershire-wide strategies would aim to address regional
requirements and development sites.
- The Moreton-in-Marsh
Working Group would only ...
view the full minutes text for item OS.211
|
OS.212 |
PAS Peer Review and Action Plan PDF 725 KB
Purpose
That the Committee scrutinises
the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to
Cabinet on 9 July 2025.
Cabinet Member
Councillor Juliet
Layton
Lead Officer
Geraldine LeCointe
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The purpose of the report was
to seek the Council’s endorsement of the findings of the PAS
(Planning Advisory Service) Planning Service Peer Challenge report
(May 2025) and the proposed Action Plan.
The Cabinet Member for Planning
and the Head of Planning made the following points:
- The Planning Advisory
Service conducted a peer challenge to assess strengths and
identified areas for improvement.
- Challenges included
COVID and interim agency directors, but the appointment of the
Assistant Director of Planning Services and Director of Communities
and Place had been welcomed.
In questioning and discussion,
it was noted that:
- Responsibility for
plan actions would be shared among several heads of service.
Development management and enforcement functions would be directly
led, with senior leadership providing overall oversight. Some
proposed timescales were acknowledged as ambitious.
- The action plan was a
living document, reviewed periodically to track progress. Updates
were to be reported to the portfolio holder. Positive outcomes
would be shared publicly. The process would align with the
corporate plan, feeding into service plans, KPIs, team plans, and
individual objectives, all regularly reviewed to ensure continuous
improvement and accountability.
- Planning enforcement
remained challenging, but improvements were underway. Priorities
included updating the Local Enforcement Plan to set expectations,
clarifying case prioritisation, and improving public communication.
Team processes would be overhauled to reduce admin burdens, enhance
IT use, and introduce a triage system. Recruitment to permanent
posts was expected by the end of November, as current agency
contracts were unsustainable beyond then.
- A Developer Forum was
planned, with the first session anticipated in 2026. Sessions would
be structured and themed to ensure focused discussion and
manageable officer involvement.
- Officers were
exploring AI tools to improve efficiency in reporting and
correspondence. Senior leadership and communications were committed
to the responsible adoption of new technology.
- Members requested
clearer updates on enforcement cases in their wards, including
triage details where confidentiality permits. The enforcement team
valued member engagement and aimed to reinstate regular updates,
though resources currently limited this.
- Concerns were raised
about past validation processes allowing incomplete applications,
causing delays and decision risks. Pre-application advice was
encouraged but extensions remained necessary to ensure full
consultee input and avoid rushed decisions. A flexible negotiation
protocol existed but required more consistent use. Clear service
level agreements with consultees would help manage expectations and
support decision-making.
- The review
highlighted that the planning and enforcement team was positive and
engaged but required improved processes, IT systems, and tools,
such as AI and enhanced performance management, to boost efficiency
and effectiveness.
- The team planned to
better utilise the Enterprise case management system to automate
key stages, notifications, and feedback. Performance management
improvements, using tools like Power BI and Idox Insights were
underway and expected soon.
- Service level
agreements were developed to formalise collaboration between
planning teams, with set expectations and deadlines. Regular
reviews and meetings were planned to improve cohesion and
efficiency. Tools like Idox supported this process.
16:47
– Councillor Harris left the chamber.
The following recommendations
were made to Cabinet:
1.
That ...
view the full minutes text for item OS.212
|