Items
| No. |
Item |
OS.274 |
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 Jon Wareing and Lisa Spivey.
|
OS.275 |
Substitute Members
To note details of any
substitution arrangements in place for the meeting.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
There were no substitute
Members.
|
OS.276 |
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of
interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the
meeting.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Angus Jenkinson declared his role
as Chair of the North Cotswold Liberal Democrats and his membership
of the Upper Thames Catchment Partnership Steering Group.
|
OS.277 |
Minutes  PDF 561 KB
To approve the minutes of the
meetings held on 1 December 2025.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting on 1
December 2025 were discussed. Councillor Turner proposed accepting
the minutes and Councillor Slater seconded the proposal which was
put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: to APPROVE the
minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2025.
|
OS.278 |
Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting
To consider actions outstanding
from minutes of previous meetings.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
It was noted that there was no
update from the previous meeting, but that information regarding
how the Regulation 18 housing numbers had been calculated was
expected shortly.
|
OS.279 |
Chair's Announcements
To receive any announcements
from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Chair thanked officers and
Members for their support over the year and particularly the Vice
Chair. The Chair confirmed that future
work would include scrutiny of the next stage of the Local Plan and
preparations for local government reorganisation when this was
ready.
16:06 – Councillor David
Cunningham arrived in the Chamber.
|
OS.280 |
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.281 |
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.282 |
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
to Cabinet at the previous meeting.
|
OS.283 |
Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees PDF 440 KB
Purpose
To receive any verbal updates
on the work of external scrutiny bodies:
Gloucestershire Economic Growth
Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Health Overview & Scrutiny
Committee – Councillor Dilys Neill
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Chair thanked Councillor
Jenkinson for his report and comments from the Gloucester Economic
Growth Scrutiny Committee. The Chair also thanked Councillor Neill
for her report on HOSC, which provided useful insights into local
NHS services, including the five-year plan and the ten-year
national health plan, highlighting the role of technology and AI in
service transformation.
|
OS.284 |
Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2 PDF 562 KB
Purpose
To provide an update on
progress on the Council’s priorities and service
performance.
Cabinet
Member
Councillor Mike Evemy,
Leader of the Council
Lead
Officer
Alison Borrett, Senior
Performance Analyst
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 Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, and Alison Borrett,
Senior Performance Analyst.
In questioning and discussion,
the following points were noted:
- The targets
used across many services were predominantly government mandated.
These included both time-based targets and percentage measures,
whilst other targets, such as those for waste services, were set at
a service level. Overall, approximately 70% of the targets were
determined by government requirements, with 30% established by
individual services.
- Statutory
and service targets provided a clear set of expectations,
particularly for nationally mandated measures. Government-set
targets were intended to ensure consistent performance monitoring
across councils. Officers highlighted that LG Inform, the Local
Government Association’s data-sharing platform, could be used
to compare the Council’s performance with other
authorities.
- That the
“two decimal place rule” should be reconsidered to
reflect best practice. It was noted that the data could be rounded
if requested.
- There had
been some delays in council rebates for residents. These challenges
were partly due to the transition from Housing Benefit to Universal
Credit for working-age claimants. Performance had improved
significantly in the second quarter, although cumulative annual
figures still reflected earlier delays.
- Given the
current planning context, including the loss of the five-year land
supply and the tilted balance in favour of applications, it was
prudent to allocate additional funds to defend planning
decisions.
- Reporting
service failures as a separate measure for missed bin collections
would provide clearer insight into operational
performance.
- Household
waste recycling figures could be negatively affected when less
waste arises, which also influenced decisions around waste
collection services.
- The green
waste recycling rate could be misleading during a dry season during
summer months. It was confirmed that green waste figures could be
reported separately from general recycling and normal waste to
provide insight into performance.
- The Council
continued to support the Royal Agricultural University
(RAU)’s Innovation Village application and officers were
asked to ensure strategic-level representations to progress it
through the planning process.
- Engagement
with towns and parishes had included discussions on local
government reorganisation (LGR) alongside the Local Plan,
particularly at the November forums in Moreton-in-Marsh and
Cirencester. A summer update on local government reorganisation
would provide an opportunity to launch the public
consultation.
- Town and
Parish councils had requested more information on the proposed
neighbourhood partnerships. There was a challenge in providing
definitive details, as boundaries and structures would ultimately
be determined by the new authority or authorities.
- The
delivery of affordable homes was underachieving. The data was not
yet being used to inform the Local Plan but could be used in future
to support increasing affordable housing provision.
- LGR had
limited the Council’s ability to pursue more direct control
over housing delivery, leaving the provision of genuinely
affordable, socially rented homes largely dependent on the
commercial decisions of developers and housing
associations.
|
OS.285 |
Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2 PDF 963 KB
Purpose
This report sets out the second quarterly
budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.
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 set out the second quarterly budget monitoring position for the
2025/26 financial year.
The report was introduced by
Councillor Patrick Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance, and David
Stanley, Deputy Chief Executive. The report was introduced and the
following points made:
- The
financial outturn showed several positive variances, with transfers
to earmarked reserves helping to mitigate future financial
pressures.
- Additional
income from development management fees being set aside in an
appeals reserve, savings from vacancy management transferred to
reserves, and additional treasury management income allocated to
support longer-term financial resilience in the context of LGR and
potential interest rate reductions.
- Car parking
income was also reported to be performing positively, with
additional income forecast at Quarter 2 and strong performance into
Quarter 3.
In questioning and discussion,
the following points were noted:
- Vacant
posts in transformation, learning and organisational development,
and strategic housing had been reviewed as part of the
Council’s vacancy management process. The Council had
appointed a Transformation Support Officer and determined that
sufficient capacity existed to deliver the transformation programme
before LGR. The Learning and Organisational Development roles were
no longer considered necessary in the context of LGR. In relation
to strategic housing, it was concluded that existing resources were
sufficient. These decisions had contributed to the release of
£710,000 to reserves.
- Additional
costs of supporting the Corporate Plan would depend on how the LGR
programme was developed and funded across the county. The
£710,000 transferred to the capacity-building reserve by
Quarter 2 indicated the likely scale of support required. Any
additional LGR-related costs would be considered as part of the
budget-setting process in February, with a detailed assessment
included in the Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy. £1
million over the next two financial years was the level of reserve
that might be required to support service delivery.
- The
refreshed Corporate Plan did not require additional resources to
deliver its priorities.
- The Council
reviewed how waste was collected in Bourton-on-the-Water, including
considering the use of fewer but larger bins to reduce collection
requirements and address areas with persistent waste issues. Work
was also underway with fast-food outlets, and a pilot scheme was
expected to be introduced.
Break 17:28 –
17:33
|
OS.286 |
Waste Fleet Replacement PDF 576 KB
Purpose
·
To review the Capital Fleet Replacement Programme
and identify the vehicles for replacement in 2026/27.
·
To agree the next steps towards the decarbonisation
of the waste services.
Cabinet Member
Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member
for Environment and Regulatory Services
Lead Officer
Peta Johnson, Head of Waste and
Environment.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The purpose of the report was
to review the Capital Fleet Replacement Programme and identify the
vehicles for replacement in 2026/27 and to agree the next steps
towards the decarbonisation of the waste service.
The report was introduced by
Councillor Andrea Pellergam, Cabinet
Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, and Helen Martin,
Director of Communities and Place. The report was introduced and
the following points made:
- The Council
faced competing priorities in replacing its waste fleet, including
the high capital cost, carbon reduction commitments, and the need
to maintain reliable service delivery.
- Due to the
age and condition of the existing vehicles, repairing them was not
feasible.
- The report
had proposed to look at replacing 31 vehicles, including purchasing
one electric vehicle in the southern part of the district where
charging infrastructure was available, with the remainder using
diesel temporarily. Hydro-treated vegetable oil (HVO) would be used
as a lower-carbon alternative to diesel where possible.
In questioning and discussion,
the following points were noted:
- It was
confirmed that further financial information would be provided in
the February budget report, with funding available and borrowing
avoided.
- The lead
time for waste fleet replacement vehicles was long, creating
urgency to place orders to ensure service continuity. It was
confirmed that the Council was working to avoid the need for
borrowing, using available balances, reserves, and projected
revenue, but a definitive guarantee could not yet be provided due
to uncertainties in the provisional local government finance
settlement and business rates income. By the next Committee meeting
on 3 February, more detailed financial information would be
available to inform whether borrowing would be required for the
waste fleet replacement programme.
- Placing
orders for the waste fleet would involve reserving production slots
up to 12 months in advance, with specifications finalised during
that period. Payments would be required upfront and on delivery.
Officers advised that any adjustments or cancellations to orders
could be managed, but the priority remained to organise revenue and
capital funding to avoid the need for borrowing.
- Concerns
were raised regarding the possible inclusion of palm oil in HVO and
the need for auditing or monitoring mechanisms to ensure
environmental benefits. The report acknowledged these risks and
indicated that the Council would develop an appropriate mechanism
to monitor both the financial and climate implications of using
HVO.
- The Council
was not yet in a position to fully transition to electric vehicles.
The Gloucestershire Waste Partnership had not yet delivered
significant joint action.
- HVO costs
were around 10–15% higher than diesel, amounting to
approximately £71k extra per year. Officers confirmed that HVO remained in the report
as a temporary measure to mitigate carbon impact while EV adoption
was limited, and that planning permission and site ownership issues
could affect implementation timing, which was roughly comparable to
the lead time for vehicle delivery.
- £60,000 for a fuel bunker was already included in the
capital programme. It was also noted that the new vehicles would
include larger compartments for cardboard to improve recycling
capacity. ...
view the full minutes text for item OS.286
|
OS.287 |
Work Plan and Forward Plan PDF 508 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:
This item was not considered as
the meeting had exceeded the 3-hour time limit.
|