Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 13 October 2025, 4:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Apologies
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
4 Minutes
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
6 Chair's Announcements
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 Public Questions
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
8 Member Questions
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
9 Report back on recommendations
Agenda item :
10 Bromford Housing Update
Share this agenda point
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Tony Slater
-
Guest
-
Councillor Nick Bridges
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Nikki Ind
-
Guest
-
Councillor Nikki Ind
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Guest
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Guest
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Guest
-
Councillor Tony Slater
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Nick Bridges
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Guest
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
11 Budget Strategy and Medium Term Financial Strategy Update
Share this agenda point
- 2026-27 Budget Strategy and MTFS Update Report v3 FINAL 2025 10 07
- Annex A - Exceptional Financial Support FINAL
- Annex B - Fair Funding 2.0 Consultation FINAL
- Annex C - Fair Funding 2.0 indicative impact FINAL
- Annex D - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026-27 UPDATE October 2025 FINAL
- Annex E - Capital Programme 2026-27 to 2029-30 FINAL
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Joe Harris
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Joe Harris
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Joe Harris
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Tony Slater
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Tony Slater
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
12 Work Plan and Forward Plan
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
13 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
14 Cotswold District Local Plan (2011-31) Regulation 18 Consultation
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Clare Turner
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Seat 10
-
Officer
-
Councillor Clare Turner
-
Councillor Clare Turner
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Tony Slater
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Joe Harris
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Joe Harris
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Officer
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Clare Turner
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Michael Vann
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Juliet Layton
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Officer
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Andrew Brown, Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Andrew Brown, Officer
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Joe Harris
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Mike Evemy
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Webcast Finished
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:11
Thank you very much for all planning up today.So a warm welcome to you all and to the members of the public who may be watching here or
online as well.
I always want to acknowledge and thank the cabinet members and officers who have been
given their reports, and to all the members of the committee
and also the officers present to support the overview
and scrutiny committee in its functions.
Usual housekeeping, fire exit that way, lose out that way,
and I think that's all that we need.
Oh, very important, please, please put any mobile device
on silent or turn it off.
We will occasionally forget this, so thank you for that.
This meeting will be live streamed and will also be available to view later through CDC's website.
If anyone wishes to fill in the proceedings, this is permitted, provided it does not disrupt the proceedings.
So now we move on to apologies. Do we have any apologies?
1 Apologies
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:01:18
We have notification of late attendance by Councillor Lisa Spivey.Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:01:25
Do we then have, we do obviously don't have any substitutions,although I think there were one or two people who indicated they might not be turning up.
Anyway, we have no substitutions, so thank you for that.
3 Declarations of Interest
Moving on from there, any declarations of interest from anybody on matters which are going to be a part of this agenda?
No declarations of interest.
4 Minutes
Then could I move to the minutes of the last meeting and ask those people who were present at that meeting to give any comments
observations or then I will be looking for a
Proposed and second before those minutes. I have a comment from Councillor Cunningham
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:02:07
Madam chair could the minutes please reflect the fact that I left the meeting at 5 p .m.. Thank youCouncillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:15
Thank you for that. Are there any other comments or changes that anybody wishes to make tothose minutes or can we accept them, have them proposed, seconded and approved?
Opposed?
Councillor Mcginnis. Who would like to second? Who is... Councillor
van, thank you very much indeed. And could I have a vote on those minutes to be... Thank
Thank you very much for that.
5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Matters arising from the minutes.
I'm really grateful to Democratic Services for
producing the helpful notes which cover most of the,
in fact, I think all matters arising.
This additional report really is very, very helpful.
So the, just my picking up on having gone through that useful
list. I just wanted to make a comment on the electrical vehicle charging at CDC
at Trinity Road. It does seem to have quite a low uptake and I was wondering
whether there's anything further can be done to publicise their availability. And
I know that David Stanley's here who might make a note on that. The UVicoh
I understand that this is currently being reviewed with an intention to come to a decision
shortly and I note that this is also included in the budget and MTFS agenda item.
I know that Councillor Turner might actually mention it herself that she would like to
see a clearer breakdown on the facilities provided by Freedom Leisure, particularly
in Chipping Camden.
and Freedom Leisure are coming to the next overview
and scrutiny meeting.
So no doubt you could take it further then,
or would you like to mention anything on that now?
Thank you.
We'll take it forward at that point.
I also will note that Democratic Services have written
to all members saying that Freedom Leisure is coming
to the next meeting and ask them to submit questions
in advance to Freedom Leisure, as we have done
with Bromford today.
and I think that's a very helpful way forward.
And the last thing was on enforcement.
It was encouraging to hear progress is being made
and we look forward to looking at this in depth at O &S
in April next year.
It would be wonderful if it could be sooner,
but I do understand that that is when it is forecast
to take place.
Is there anybody else who's got any comments they'd
like to make of matters arising?
Right, fantastic.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:01
So we'll move on to the Chair's announcements.6 Chair's Announcements
Both this meeting and the one in November have very full agendas.
And it was agreed at the last O &S to have an additional meeting in December.
Thank you all for agreeing to this.
Having discussed it with Democratic Services, it was agreed that O &S did not need to look
at council tax support scheme 2026 -27 at our next earned S meeting.
So this has been removed from that agenda.
In fact, cabinet are going to be looking at that on Thursday.
So it seemed that we were on the wrong way around anyway.
In order to leave sufficient time for the last topic, which is the local plan and is
bring to a close the discussions on Bromford and the Budget Strategy when
they're allocated times of three -quarters of an hour for Bromford and half an hour for
the Budget Strategy are reached. So I'm afraid at that point my Vice -Chair will
say I'm sorry that's it we move on. I'm giving you a fair and full warning in
advance. So now we move to public questions. Are there any public
7 Public Questions
questions submitted?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:06:23
There are no public questions. Member questions. We've had member questions from CouncillorInge and Councillor Cawe. Councillor Inge is here. I was going to suggest that you've
had the written answer amongst other things but that you would like to add in any further
supplementaries of comments when Bromford are here and going through the
rest of it. Are you satisfied to have your answer then? Thank you Councillor Ende.
Councillor Caul's question, I think it's been recommended that he
actually takes this to cabinet for a fuller response so I don't think... are we
8 Member Questions
satisfied with that? Yes. So thank you very much indeed. We go on to 9, which is the report
9 Report back on recommendations
back on recommendations that we made to Cabinet at the last meeting. I've discussed this with
Democrats, so I thought it was, anyway, it was not as perhaps as clear as it might have been.
What I understood that O and S were suggesting was that we were planned to have a display
of the CDC archive, which will be a recognition of the work
and people over its existence, towards the end of when CDC
disappears and becomes part of whatever unitary we're going
to be looking forward to.
And at that display, there may be some artefacts included
from the Corinne Museum.
I am completely understanding that this is still some way off,
that it will be worked up and the plan will be made.
and I think we will discuss this further in general between everybody at CDC because that's
I think the right thing to say. There's no immediate thing, but I just feel it was more
to do with this council and this building. The Corinnean Museum has slightly different
objectives. I don't know if Councillor Bridges, who did have a query on this, wanted to add
anything now.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:08:36
When I was querying it with you earlier on, I was talking about the living history orliving memorial association because we actually are storing things for them at the moment.
It seems odd that we're storing things at someone's cost, things at the Guardian, when
we actually have empty rooms here.
And I would have thought just the sheer logic of just saving money by storing them in our
empty rooms would be something that's worth exploring.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:09:06
and nobody has explored it with me. Thank you for that clarification. Yes Iabsolutely agree because we have got capacity somewhere here without doubt to
display them. I don't think they take up a huge amount of room but maybe you'd
like to take that up with members of the cabinet perhaps you know going forward
and seeing what we could do. Our Councillor Layton has got I would like to
Thank you.
I'm on as an officer.
Officer - 0:09:30
Sorry about that.And I don't even know whether it's right that I
butt in on this.
But it has been discussed, and I thought it was
discussed openly about the fact that we needed, it
was to do with security and atmospheric conditions
maybe, but I think security was one of the big
issues of the storage here.
I'm sure we discussed that.
Not with me.
Well, I don't know how it got missed.
It probably wasn't a one -to -one, Nick.
I don't know quite.
I can't quite remember where we discussed it, but we, it has been.
It hasn't, didn't go away.
Well, thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:08
I mean, perhaps you'd like to take that up because I think it's a very good point.So if you could, you know, thank you very much.
Yes.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:18
Sorry.I'm just turning on and off the mic sometimes.
One.
Yeah.
Okay, so now the next item is number 10.
I want to give a, it's on the Bromford housing.
10 Bromford Housing Update
I want to give a warm welcome to the representatives
of Bromford flag staff as they are now, housing,
and thank them for looking at some of the questions
posed by members in advance and preparing written replies.
I know those were done by Councillor Slater,
Councillor Ind and myself.
Bronfort is CDC's major partner in providing social
and affordable housing across the district.
And we appreciate it is not a statutory requirement
for Bronfort to attend O &S's meetings.
So we really welcome your attendance today.
I hope that through this meeting we can build a better
understanding of your organisation and going forward,
develop positive lines of communication
on behalf of our residents.
Please can I remind everyone to keep their questions short and to the point.
I'm quite sure Bromford would be willing to give members more details in writing after the meeting if that would be helpful.
We also have here Councillor Layton, cabinet member of housing and planning, and Alan Hope, head of strategic housing property assets present.
Could the members of Bromford introduce themselves, please?
Sorry, I'm turning around and then I'm not talking to my...
Because it would be helpful to know who you are and what you do.
Thank you.
So, my name is Nick Waldridge.
Guest - 0:11:59
I am head of home investment for Bromford.Just on the... So we are Bromford flagship as a group,
but on the west side, which is Bromford,
I'm responsible... I'm head of home investment for that particular area.
Guest - 0:12:19
Hi everyone, I'm Natalie Colfer. I'm head of neighbourhoods and communities atBronford flagship. I oversee all of their housing function including the
Guest - 0:12:33
neighbourhood coaches. And I'm Amanda Swan, I'm regional director for new homescovering what is our West region which includes Gloucestershire and obviously
the Cotswolds area.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:12:44
This is Alan who is our head.I just said that you might be confused because you're up with Bronford, so to clarify your
I'm very confused.
Guest - 0:12:57
Alan Hope, Council Officer, Head of Strategic Housing, Property and Assets.Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:13:04
I'm going to repeat that I really appreciate the answers you've given.And not everybody will have had a huge amount of time to look at
them, through them yet.
So I think I understand that you were going to run through and
expand them a bit, give us a bit more clarification.
But what I would be grateful for is to still have time at the end
for those members here.
And there are not too many of us,
but I'm sure we have some extra questions which are really
supplementaries to the answers that you've already given or
maybe wanting a bit more clarification.
So I don't know who of you would like to go first,
but please, thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:13:40
I'm getting the counselling.Would you like to, I mean, we did.
Very briefly.
Just very briefly, because it is absolute pleasure
to have you guys here.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:13:51
And look at that, Alan, that's the wrong way.I'm gonna go that way.
Because we work a lot, and we work collaboratively
a lot with Bromford's.
They come to our meetings, they come to our housing
and homelessness meetings.
We go out and see them and I've seen Metamandra a few times but it's actually really great
that they've taken this time to come out, put together this pack of questions and answers
which is really nice to see and I hope you're all kind to them.
But ask pertinent questions but not too repetitive I think the plea is.
But thank you very much for coming out and thank you Alan for sorting it out as well.
Guest - 0:14:35
Okay, so the first sort of questions that have been received in relation to the allocationsof homes and tenant support, and in the main that kind of comes under my area.
So just to kind of give a high level overview, there were some questions around exploring
the allocation of the homes in rural villages and people who come from cities and don't
have their own transport.
The best way in terms of communication and accessibility to those villages that people are moving into.
In the most part, the properties as we've mentioned are allocated through the local authority policy as well as housing legislation.
In the main, we will allocate those homes to people who have got the priority connexion with the village or the area that they're seeking to move to.
and they are allocated to those with the most
of the highest need.
The local authority will assess them
and give them their banding.
And when we are short -listing those people,
we'll ensure that those, that criteria is met.
So, in, I guess, one of the other questions
was around having some difficulty to reach us
through the telephone service with long waits.
And that's something that we can take offline
to explore a best way to engage with you
about how best we can give you better access to our service
so we can come back to you in due course around that.
I wasn't sure if anyone had any specific questions
around how we allocate our homes.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:16:15
As far as I can see, there are no particular questions.I think that is one of the things that's fairly well understood.
not always that it does it always feel that to some of the residents all the
people making applications they don't always feel quite so that sometimes it
doesn't seem so fair to them but I think on the whole you actually run a very
Guest - 0:16:39
good system so thank you. Thank you. The next question was around severalcases of applicants coming to evening as their first rural home and what the
policy was on filling those empty properties and the coaching that is
available to those applicants who move into those villages.
And I think it's probably fair to say Amanda,
you might be able to help me answer this one in particular,
but those homes Bromford flagship built
on behalf of English.
English rural housing.
So the new homes that are in evening,
we don't actually manage those.
We just acted as a development agency service
on behalf of what was originally Gloucester Rural Housing,
obviously then merged into English Rural Housing.
So actually the allocation is the same
Natalie talked about previously through the local authority but in terms of how
those customers and then would be managed those homes are owned by English
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:17:32
rural housing. Thank you. I think if you carry on and then if anybodywants to pick up on the issues that it's probably going to keep flowing more
easily so just if you go through them all then people will be making notes and
Guest - 0:17:47
anything else they'd like to raise. Thank you. Wonderful, thank you. In terms ofmanagement of tenants especially those struggling to pay their rent and we have
bought out here around as having our neighbourhood coaching team. So just to
explain a little bit more about what that means. At Bromford flagship we give
our neighbourhood coaches a much smaller patch so that means that they can have a
greater level of relationship with our customer. In the main they support
around 200 to 250 customers and when you compare that with other housing
providers they often have around 750 to a thousand customers that they support.
We do have a much broader remit but that means that we do have more time to give
to our customers and in particular if there are people who need help with
maximising their benefits we can help support them with that. We also have a
dedicated income management team who are able to visit our customers who
may be struggling to pay their rent or need access to other
benefits and services, and we are able to help them in their
homes to gain access to that as well.
So we continue, I guess, to, we have an ambition where we visit
every customer once a year, and we all go and we will do an
assessment of their needs and how they're getting on in their
home, and during that visit we can pick up if there's any
support or maximisation that we can help with.
We are working regularly on ways to kind of engage our
customers in different aspects.
And at the moment, we are looking at ways to engage
with some of our silent customers, so customers who
may not let us into their home.
They may have reasons that they're not able to engage
with us, and we now know who they are.
So that's really, really great from a Bournemouth
perspective, and we can target our resources accordingly.
Something else that came up was about carpets.
And we kind of strongly believe at Bromford flagship
that our customers getting off to a really good start
with their home is vitally important.
And throughout our ways of improving,
we're constantly looking at the different ways
that we can benefit our customers.
And we had a project called Closing the Home Standards
Group, which is something that you have seen
in the narrative here.
And one of the things that we have done to improve
in the last two years is every time we have a home
become vacant. Previously we would probably have got rid of nearly
every carpet which is probably what you have seen and heard from
customers but actually we know that that's really really expensive for
people to replace. Some of the reasons that we would strip carpets out are
because people have pets, they might have been heavy smokers and they might have
been dirty or not clean enough for us to relit but actually we've invested in
different ways that we can probably perhaps clean those carpets so that they
can be left for people.
And I think now in 80 percent of cases where we
have a property become empty and carpet has been
left behind, we now keep that instead of
pulling it out.
We are also looking at different trials and
initiatives when we have homes that come to us,
homes that maybe return to us that didn't even have
carpet as well.
We've had different carpet trials where we're working
with really large national organisations who are able
to help us carpet homes. And over the last year we've supported more than 100 households
with carpet tiles to get into their homes. We understand that by having a carpet it makes
it feel like a home. It can also help with the decrease in antisocial behaviour, noise
transference. It's really important for children to have that security of flooring within a
property. So hopefully as time goes on you will see that that is reflected when you are
coming into contact with new Bromford customers. There was some questions
around access to rural support services, particularly domestic violence, mental
health, substance abuse support. Our neighbourhood coaching team are really
well trained and they absolutely kind of know about the different specialist
support services that are available in that area. We have toolkits that we
provide our neighbourhood coaches with that kind of list all the different levels of support
services for our customers. And we will get back to them as quickly as we can. Our policy
says that if somebody is in sort of a really physical need of our services in respect of
domestic abuse or hate crime that we will respond within two working days. And we try
to do that within 24 hours where we can. For antisocial behaviour, again, we try to aim
to get in contact with them within five working days.
And the neighbourhood coaches are aware of all of the support
services that are in their local area.
It can differ across our geography,
so we tailor those toolkits for our teams.
I think we come onto the questions a little bit
around our ability to have place -based teams.
We have one of our first place -based teams
is based in Moreton in the Marsh.
And that place -based team is getting off
a really brilliant start and with our partnership board approach with CDC we
are looking at developing place plans so we will be able to ensure that we're
looking at what gaps in service there are so that might not just be from a
domestic abuse perspective it could be from getting job ready perspective it
could be from repairs or moving home and we'll ensure that with the plans that
we're developing in our places that we have that tailored approach to what each
community needs. There were some questions around the profile of our
housing waiting lists including the length of time for urgent and
non -urgent cases and so we've we've spelt out exactly how many people are on
the waiting list there so do let me know if you have any questions in that
Councillor Tony Slater - 0:23:46
respect. Yes of course. Thanks for answering both my questions they'reof linked but could I just understand I'm assuming if there's somebody on the
emergency or gold list that is a reasonable fit for a property they would
take precedence over somebody on the silver or bronze list who have got local
Guest - 0:24:10
connexions. Yes so when the property is advertised the home seeker team willdecide which banding that property is advertised for so it will go to
preference will be going to gold, silver or bronze. There's usually a weighting
around that. Typically around 65 % of homes go to the gold banding and then I
think it's about 35 % to silver. I can't remember the maths exactly but it's
split out in that way. So the home seeker will decide which banding that
property gets priority for and they will then get preference in that right order.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:24:49
If you're on the bronze list how long does it normally take for you to actually be allocated a house?Guest - 0:24:58
Typically it can be anywhere between 12 to 24 months usually.Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:08
Just as a thing, I got Councillor In here and you did cover the carpets. It was her particular sort of thing.it has been mine because I've also been approached by local charities who have
been feeling that frustration because it's a huge expense if somebody has to
put it in themselves. I actually note that the government is actually saying
by 2035 that that's going to be a requirement for housing associations but
I did say because she did not member the committee but I'm allowing her to have
so council and if you would like to ask your question around that thank you.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:25:39
Thank you chair, yes and thank you for the response. I was interested when you said that 100 households you've helped, is that nationally or in our district?Guest - 0:25:51
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:25:52
Is the first question? Nationally. Okay, which would explain something for me. So this is something that I've brought up a number of times at council.and probably 12 -18 months ago was told about your tile process.
I am, in the rest of my life, I'm a trustee of a small charity.
We had, when I first raised this, it was because we were being approached by particularly young
mums who couldn't put their children on the floor because they were trying to learn to
crawl but they had nothing and we were funding a rug for a room basically.
And that seemed to go very quiet.
But in the last few months I've had a couple of more applications that have come through.
So it feels to me like something's not happening.
I don't know, but it just seems to me that it seems to be creeping back in again.
And it would be interesting to know how many of those hundred nationally were in the Cotswold district.
I'm really glad to hear you're not pulling carpets out.
I mean I've heard real horror storeys of, you know, elderly people who had had new carpets and families being told to rip them out.
Not recently, but that is something that was certainly taking place and that is really concerning.
It was upsetting for that family because they knew they were perfectly decent carpets.
And when you've got young families particularly, and with the cost of living crisis, the amount of money it costs to heat somewhere with no carpets.
But I do appreciate you're not the only housing association.
So as a ward councillor I would really appreciate, I don't know whether ONS can
recommend it or to cabinet or for council, I would really like to see ward
councillors receiving maybe an annual update from all of our housing providers
giving us an idea, things like ageing properties, so that's something that
comes out, mould and things, you know how many have we got, what's the plan to get
them done, maybe once a year just so that we have an idea of what's going on
because we only hear things when they get really bad as a Councillor or through the charity that I'm a trustee for.
So it would just be really nice to see where the trajectory is going and make sure we're on top of things
and if there's anything we can do. But just thank you very much for answering everything.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:28:00
Thank you and thank you Councillor. I just wondered whether Councillor Layton would like to make a comment on Councillor Inge's ideas and suggestions?Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:28:09
I'm not sure there's not much of a comment I can make about this becauseI'm not sure how much information is given through our housing teams actually
I haven't been updated on that but to have a the idea of having those numbers
could be well worth knowing but it's not us that's doing the repair is it it's
actually promise you need that but for as our residents yeah it might help that
we know that we're on top of it. I agree with that.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:28:40
Thank you.Guest - 0:28:45
So on that point, if that's a kind of annual review or annual reporting from our piece,I'm more than happy to take that forward and see if I can get our piece to cooperate with
us in that way. I'm sure most of them will do. We just need to agree a list of what do
want to know.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:29:07
Thank you.Guest - 0:29:13
There was a question about management of external areas.I can see we have included a link to our website about the Bronford service standard in respect
of grass cutting, hedge trimming etc but I wanted to cheque if there was any
specific questions in relation to grass cutting before we move on.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:29:38
That's not a particular question but we do get this thing that obviously like anybody'sproperties hedges grow, trees grow, this that and the other and sometimes in order to keep
footpaths clear and things overgrowth can make it blocked and it is a question
of getting sometimes that sort of thing dealt with in time.
And there are, you know, yeah, that was really the question.
Thank you.
Hello there.
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:30:08
Just following up on that, actually,there is sometimes confusion about whose responsibility it is.
And I found it quite difficult at times, and that's not a criticism of Bromford,
that's as much on CDC's side as on your side, as to finding out who it is
that is responsible for keeping these areas.
And sometimes you'll get residents go out there
and they'll do their community spirited trim or whatever.
But in actual fact, that isn't really sustainable.
It tends to be older people that do it.
And it isn't something that you can expect them to keep doing.
And then it can sometimes lapse.
Is there a way to find out whose responsibility it is
in terms of areas outside of your units?
Guest - 0:30:53
Yeah, so internally we've tried to make things a little bit more simpler and our neighbourhoodcoaches now have access to a system called GIS, which you might have heard of, you might
have that here at the local authority. And it's a mapping tool where you can see who
is responsible for the land ownership. Previously, my team would have to go and speak to another
team and request an update and that would take five working days and they'd have to
come back. So it was probably a little bit cumbersome. It's been made simpler
for us to access who owns which bits of land. I don't know internally at the CDC
how best you do that. In other local authorities we work with, we have
good links with the grounds maintenance teams who we can ask if it's their land
or our land. Some of our maps will show who owns the land as well and sometimes
Sometimes there can be a little bit of a dispute over who owns land, but we can usually come
to a quick resolution over that.
In terms of support for our customers if they cannot maintain it by themselves, the neighbourhood
coach can help find other people who could do that for them.
So we, you know, they're the best placed person who will know if a neighbourhood could help
them, a family member.
in Bromford unfortunately we don't have the facility to cut back people's hedges
or maintain their gardens or things like that at this point in time. There's
always ways that we're looking to improve our services so if that is
something that needed to be explored certainly we could take that away to
look at. But generally we will look out for the community to see how best
we can work with them to resolve their overgrown garden. That's an example. Thank
you. So next and there's some questions about our website and helping how
neighbourhood coaches help customers thrive in their home. I've kind of
touched a bit upon the support that we provide so I don't know if anyone's got
any last questions in that respect in terms of neighbourhood coaches at all.
Thank you. And then the last question in my area was about the updates on changes to administration
resulting from our merger with flagship housing. So at the moment, things are business as usual.
We are in a period of alignment where we're working through with flagship the different
ways that we will operate. But having been through mergers before at Bromford, the team
that you see and deal with now will very much be the team that you see and deal
with in the future. I don't think you should probably notice too much change
in that respect. With anything, any merger with change there is opportunity and I
guess what we probably will always try to do is look at ways to make ourselves
a bit more efficient and improve the offer that we've got there right now. So
that it probably will take some time for you to see any changes in that respect
but we will always try and keep them as slick as possible.
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:34:03
So things like the neighbourhood coaches, they won't be changing,because that's the first point of contact for most people.
So that's where they get disruption, I think.
So if that isn't going to change, I think that's good.
Guest - 0:34:14
No, at this present time, the neighbourhood coaches will be remaining.You may have seen last week, there was some news about us
going about to plan another merger with live west who are a southwest based organisation and
our chief executive Robert Nettleton is very keen that we keep the neighbourhood coaching model and look at ways to
Improve the offering that we have so that should remain
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:34:45
Thank you, but counsellor Jenkinson like to get questionCouncillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:34:48
Thank you very much appreciate theyou coming and asking the questions, sorry, answering the questions.
Obviously the reason you're here is because you're really important
to us. The kind of housing that you look after is really
significant for our residents
and the people who live here and what you do is important to us.
So that's why we're discussing this with you. I've got
two questions that I'd like to ask that don't relate to the questions you've already answered.
The first might have two parts.
As you can see from our agenda later on, we are going to be, we are expecting to expand
very considerably in the years to come.
And as part of that, we want to see a significant percentage of what we expand, consisting of
affordable and social housing.
That being the case, that's going to put a lot of demand or opportunity in your direction.
So my first question is how you see yourself in reality capable of growing your resources
and development and support capability to meet that demand.
Is that feasible, easy, what?
And what kind of significant changes do you see needing to be done as part of that?
That's my first question.
I might as well ask the second one in case it's useful.
In a number of developments that I'm responsible for, and I'm sure it's the same elsewhere,
you represent a significant percentage of the total owners or occupants in a particular development.
And there are sometimes ongoing issues with the developer, sometimes even legally related.
Well, you're a highly competent body and many of our owners are not such highly competent bodies in the way that you are.
I'm interested in the way to which you consider it a responsibility to take a front line consideration
that says, is what the developer is doing in terms of setting up management companies,
operating maintenance across a public open space and so on, is that the way it ought
to be done and using your experience and perhaps your size to get involved in bringing the
issue to a head, perhaps by working with us.
Thank you for both your questions.
Guest - 0:37:36
In terms of, I'll take the first question, Amanda will take the second.When it comes to building new homes, we factor in what resources we need to deliver those
homes.
So as we grow in size to meet the affordable homes need within the area
We will ensure that we have the teams on hand to deliver those properties
We tend to look at where the parcels of homes are going to land
They often come in a lot of the same similar areas. We tend to stretch the team a little bit
we allow a level of capacity to do that and
once they're
the number of homes that a neighbourhood coach reaches a certain number, we will
forecast to see what we have got coming up over the next 12 to 24 months and
then we will choose a time that is the right time to grow that team when it's
necessary. Across the whole Gloucestershire area in the last year we
have grown by three to four neighbourhood coaches where we have had
larger level of new build property go in and so that's absolutely something that
we consider with our plans. I sit down with my team twice a year for us to look
at that new build pipeline. We work very closely with Amanda's team to have
that level of forecasting to enable us to do that and we and we build that into
our budgetary plans as well.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:39:08
The building itself is capable, is possible.Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:39:10
Guest - 0:39:12
Yeah, so I'll pick that one up. I'll pick up both parts there. So we've got a reallywell established development team, about 40 people, that solely operate across the west
region, which as I said earlier includes the wider Gloucestershire area. I think on the
– so yeah, the team are absolutely set up to be able to deliver the number of homes
that we're looking at. I think on your sort of first point around the management and our
influence I suppose over these larger sites and developers, obviously some of the problems
that you're kind of alluding to are the same whether you're a private owner or
Bromford is an owner of a number of homes so getting things like section
agreements completed and as you say management companies etc obviously where
we might own a number of homes sometimes we are only classified as one purchaser
in the way that we acquire those homes so sometimes we might not have quite the
legal percentages as any other private owner on that property now
That's not to say that we don't work really closely with our developer partners to resolve things
so I am constantly meeting with the managing directors of most of the local house builders and national house builders that operate in this area and
very much we take feedback from the teams on the ground and take all of those issues in you know, we had a
Customer care issue that wasn't getting resolved and I took that straight to the managing director and said that we're supposed to be working together
How do we resolve that so it is very much from from the ground up. I think in terms of
So paraphrasing your question would we operate on behalf of a private owner and
No, that's not what we're here for but I think if there if Bromford collectively were part of a you know
A management company or a local committee then absolutely we would you know
It's in our best interests for these services to be delivered for our customers
They pay a service charge we pay that service charge on to the management company
So we've absolutely got to keep on top of them and make sure these services are happening. So yeah, we we definitely do that
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:41:09
Thank you, thank you very much. I know we've sort of interrupted the flow as I say again, but that's inevitable. These things are never perfect.So if you'd like to, is it Natalie to continue? Because, thank you.
Guest - 0:41:22
Thank you. I think that reached the end of my particular section. So before we moved on to Amanda, does anyone have any neighbourhoods housing related queries?I am here representing the delivery of new affordable homes which also includes regeneration.
A number of the points sort of linked to effectively increasing the volume of new homes that are
built across the district. How does Bromford respond to the calls for social housing providers
to be part of those developments, how does CDC town and parish councils work best and
what are our future plans to deliver more affordable housing and hopefully set out quite
a comprehensive response.
But sort of in summary as an organisation, and Natalie alluded to a little bit of this
earlier on, so Bromford has a merged organisation with flagship.
One of the reasons that we did that was to unlock some capacity for additional borrowing
so that we could continue to deliver new homes at pace and at scale.
As the combined organisation that we are at the moment, we will deliver about 2 ,000 new homes a year in total.
Obviously with...
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:42:37
Just for clarity, that's 2 ,000 homes nationally, that's not 2 ,000 homes in Cotswold district.Is it possible to get a number of Cotswold districts?
Guest - 0:42:48
Yeah, so there is in the second to last paragraph, so over the last five years we've delivered an additional 350 affordable homesand we've got a further 200 in the pipeline at the moment.
And that is specifically for the Cotswolds.
The Cotswolds, thank you.
So yeah, so what that capacity enables us to do
is kind of twofold.
One is to build at scale,
and the second one is to deliver what we consider
to be the most affordable of the 10 years,
which is social rent.
So our strategy is that 50 % of our new homes
will be for social rent.
And actually in a Cotswold district council area,
we've actually managed to exceed that
over the last five years.
And our projection going forward is more than 50 % delivery
for social rent, so from a customer perspective as we consider to be the most affordable of
ten years. You'll obviously be aware that there is lots of funding coming out of central
government for new affordable homes. We are an existing strategic partner with Homes England
and we're sort of just coming to the end of what is the current programme which is 21
to 26 and they also obviously recently announced a further £39 billion for another ten year
programme beyond that and we're just about to enter the bidding process for that.
And what that will look at is opportunities and also need for housing and then we will formalise
a bid to Homes England which comes from central government for a financial support but also a
commitment to deliver a number of homes. We don't yet know what that looks like for each of the
individual local authority areas but that's something that we're working through at the
So as we get a bit further through the process,
then we'll be able to provide a bit more information on that.
In terms of how we work together,
and Natalie talked about it a little bit earlier,
we have the partnership board.
So myself and Alan lead one of the objectives
through that partnership board, which is the delivery
of more affordable homes.
So that partnership board is made up
of our respective chief executives,
plus myself and Alan and other senior members.
And one of the things that we're focusing on at the moment
is how do we unlock the delivery
of rural affordable housing?
so whether that be through exception sites, whether that's through land that we own that maybe
Bromford own a bit of land and the Cotswold Council own a bit of land, whether it's some opportunity for us to come together.
So we're looking at lots of different opportunities and lots of different ways to do that
and we've got a number of work streams off the back of that.
And actually we had quite a good meeting last week, didn't we Alan, around how we take that forward now.
So very much working in partnership. And I think actually that then, you know, one of the conversations
we were having was around parish councils and bringing parish councillors on board and
helping support those developments in their local areas. So that was one of the things
that we talked about last week.
Bromford also, we undertake new build homes right across the piece, so whether it be land
that we've acquired, whether it be through regeneration or whether it be through section
106, we acquire homes in through all of those three different methods, I suppose. And I
barriers to responding to calls for social housing providers to be part of
the solution and I suspect that reading between the lines links sort of into
section 106 delivery and the take -up of what could be quite small numbers of
section 106 delivery through development partners and an example again of where
where Bromford are doing that so we've just signed up with Newland Homes to
take the small number of affordable homes on the site that they're building
in Tepary. So we will go down and we will take the smaller things in the local
Authority areas of which we are stock transfer organisation and again you know
there's a small handful there all the way up through to the regeneration site
at Barclay Close which is nearly 90 new homes.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:29
Thank you, I didn't want to absolutely interrupt your flow but Councillor Laytonsignalled that she had something she would like to add at this point so thank you.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:46:38
I have a question my area is where you're where you're doing theregeneration of Berkeley homes and that is going at a pace really well and I'm
delighted that we've got solar panels, air source heat pumps, parking for bicycles
and and EV points. It's really going very well. But what I'd like to ask is
that a lot of those people in Berkeley close, which is the one that I'm most
familiar with, generations of families have lived there and are you building in
order to make sure generations can continue to live in these houses.
Because I know Homes England are keen for accessibility for people in wheelchairs, not
necessarily as they get older and they have to be in a wheelchair, but kids that need
wheelchairs and accessibility.
So we have wider doors.
Now quite a lot of homes have wider front doors, but when you go inside, everything
else is the same.
And of course, doors are doors.
And as soon as they get a bit bigger, you know,
the package gets bigger to buy.
But I just wonder if you consider doing accessible homes
so people can stay within their homes for a lot longer,
which is helpful massively to the NHS.
And people do like to stay within their own communities
with their help, you know, the help from their families.
Thank you.
Yes, yes, absolutely.
Guest - 0:48:03
So, you know across our new homes development programmeWe have pretty much every house type you can think of from one bed flat to a five bed house for those larger families and then
Bungalows as well. So we absolutely offer the whole whole range of properties
And we also offer the properties and without getting too technical that are classed as accessible
So the M standard through a planning approach
We offer a number of those on the majority of sites that we do and actually what our houses enable us to do as well
particularly in the way that some of them are constructed is it does enable for some internal
say redesign rejigging of the properties as people like you say
Move through their lives and have different requirements
So we do provide a range of housing
You might not see all of it on every single site because some of it will be dependent on
The individual site or the planning requirements, but we do across our entire portfolio offer lots of different different property types
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:49:03
Thank you and thank you for that answer. I have Councillor Cunningham and CouncillorSlater both got questions, perhaps relating to this. Thank you.
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:49:09
Yes, thank you. Do you have a policy on asset disposal? You mentioned plots of land thatyou might have. Would it always be your default to develop those plots of land for Bronford
Guest - 0:49:27
homes itself. Thanks. Yeah so absolutely so I'll let Nick pick up on this as wellbut we do have an appraisal methodology where we will look at whether it be the
properties or the plots of land as you've described and we will look at them
from a hierarchy of future uses I suppose. One is retain and invest, one is
regenerate and then the final one is dispose. So actually we will seek to
where possible either regenerate or keep and invest. We do have a disposals
programme because there are a number of homes that the investment level is just
too high and they just won't ever be fit for our future customers. Some of those
are you know the kind of non -traditional construction so we do dispose of homes
there is no getting away from that but it is done in that hierarchical way.
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:50:10
Guest - 0:50:13
Sorry but specifically land? Yeah so we look at land so we don't we don't holdacres and acres and acres we don't hold great big green fields but there are
small pockets of land, so little garage sites or little bits of land tucked away
that we absolutely would look at. We have in the past disposed of those two SME
developers to enable them to do some development. The other thing that we now
obviously look to those parcels of land for is potentially any biodiversity net
gain requirements that we have to fulfil through planning and I think
that comes back to one of the earlier points about kind of landscaping and
maintenance is actually working with our customers making sure that where we have
got these areas that have been set aside for biodiversity net gain is that actually they
might not get the level of maintenance that maybe a customer would expect because of the
very nature of what they're there to do. So I think there is something for us to do there
and for us to take away about setting the expectation around what will be some different
maintenance requirements on pieces of land. But yes, as a general rule, the small bits
of land we will absolutely look at first. If it's non -viable for us to do it, then we
would look to sell it to a small SME builder and we've done that in the past.
Councillor Tony Slater - 0:51:22
One quick question. If you're building 350 a year roughly in our area, what's the disposalrate for right to buys? Is it balanced or are you increasing stock? Just while I've
an owner of a house that was converted for a paraplegic that's associated flat and all
sloped out and everything is wants to sell it is there anybody I could contact to
see if it's suitable for a property for that sort of living?
Guest - 0:52:02
Yeah absolutely so in in terms of historic right to buy don't obviously don't have those numbershand but we like we say we are we are building lots of new homes in the area I
would say that with the changes to the discount rates that have been announced
by government recently it's definitely tailed off but I can certainly go away
and find out how many homes within the district that we've sold under the right
to buy since we took our ownership so I'll take that away and feed that back I
think in terms of stock acquisition by all means we do acquire properties
specifically for customers and it's quite rare that we do do it because
obviously we're taking on the liability of a property that we don't know too
much about but I'm quite happy that if you want to send me the details I can we
can look into it within the business and see if that's something that we can do.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:52:53
Well I don't know if Angus has his arm cast, but Councillor Bridges you go first.Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:52:59
I'd like to pick up on something that David Cunningham said, to do with the garage disposal.In my ward, some garages were sold off recently.
And I was thinking, this is a big enough area for you to have built on.
So I'm wondering why, at what point you say, oh yes, we're going to build flats rather
than just sell off an asset that's being used.
My second question would be to do with Austin Road, just to give you a specific.
I was really surprised that those are being redeveloped but at the same density as they were before
I would personally have built an extra floor above I would have built on the car park
What is what is your reasons for?
not
building higher density stuff I
Can take the small garage site bit first
Guest - 0:53:46
So the challenge that we have with some garage sites and I don't know about the one in questionIs that sometimes we own the garage site but not the access road to?
that's still in council ownership and what we tend to find with a number of
garage sites particularly in our stock transfer areas there's lots of historic
rights of access across them so we will always undertake an options appraisal to
see whether we can build on them but we've got a number of examples where
actually there are so many historic rights of access for people that have
put in rear gates or they use them to access the backs of their properties
when maybe they haven't had rear access originally but that they can evidence
that they've been doing that for years and years and years. It effectively gives
them a sort of preemptive right -of -way which is very difficult for us to then
re -manoeuvre round to be able to make it effective to put new houses in. So
quite happy to look at the individual site that you refer to but we do
absolutely make sure that we've done an assessment to see whether it's viable
for us to deliver them and if not, if there's too many rights of way or
restrictions then we will dispose of them. Any money that does get disposed of
obviously goes back into the into the pot and we use it to facilitate future
homes as well. And then on your second point about Austin Road, so yeah
absolutely so there is a slight bit of densification in that we're taking down
12 properties and 14 are going back. So in terms of the overall number it has
gone up a little bit. What we try and do when we're looking at regeneration is
address a number of potential issues that might be on any given site. So at
Austin Road one of the challenges with was with the design of the flats from a
safety aspect so that actually customers had to exit the property through the
kitchen which we know most most fires in properties end up starting kitchens and
actually so what we did was the driver for the regeneration of Austin Road was
actually the design of the properties which was the first thing. I think the
second thing is in terms of we call it the the dog bone and the car park at the
front you know the grassed area because we've had to provide biodiversity net
gain we've had to use that green space there to offset the requirement from
site so we've agreed through the planning process that we will use that
space to the front of the site to offset the biodiversity net gain requirement
through planning so it kind of renders it undevelopable at the front there but
actually what it does do is it protects it as a green space for our customers
that live there. The other thing that we've done particularly with Austin Road
is actually look at the need and the demographic for that particular area and
there was a real call from actually from both the local authority and from our
housing colleagues for some more housing rather than flats and obviously we know
that with housing they take up more space than a flat does so to offset the
balance we to get to get the houses in but also to maintain it in terms of
something that was deliverable we chose to include some housing obviously the
higher you go in terms of storeys of flats you start to get into high -rise
and then second, fire exits and things which again are land hungry. So it is a balance
between going up too high but then making the building too big that you can't actually
fit it on. So the Austin Road was definitely a compromise in terms of meeting all of those
different objectives.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:56:59
Great. Well, thank you for this. I just want to get some idea about how much more, whichwe're very willing to hear from, but as you know that we have got time constraints. So
I don't know whether...
So, I'm finished now, unless there's any questions,
more specifically on new build.
Guest - 0:57:14
Could you just have a roll call for that part?Thank you.
Certainly.
I'll pass over to Nick and he can talk about our existing names.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:57:21
Right, well, Nick, thank you very much.That's okay, thank you.
Guest - 0:57:26
So, I did try and connect some of the questionsbecause there were similar themes,
and I'll try and answer those, a couple of those together, if that's okay.
So the first couple of questions, programme of retrofitting measures to improve energy
efficiency and policies on improving energy efficiency to building stock.
So we have a retrofitting programme across all of our homes.
It is based on our worst performing stock, so we deem that to be anything which is EPCD
or below.
This is aligned with what we would call the gateway to accessing grant funding through
with the government.
So currently we've got a programme of central housing
decarbonization fund works going on.
We've got currently got the warm home social housing fund
as well, which we're just mobilising.
And we're also tapping into eco -foot,
which is the energy company obligation scheme.
And all of those require homes to be a minimum
or a maximum EPCD or below.
Our internal target is to move as many homes as we can to,
well, sorry, we want to move all of our homes to EBCC or better
by 2030, but we've got an internal target of moving about
98 .5 % to EBCC or better by 2028, April of 2028.
This is a huge task.
It's not helped by the fact that we do have a number of
traditional homes across our area of operation, a number of those are in CDC
as well and so when we're talking about the conversation around whether we
dispose, if you take for example an Aries home, under past
2035 which is the quality standard you have to have to deal with the structural
issues first before you can do any retrofit measures and on a trial that
we've done in the South Gloss area, we've spent 150 ,000 pounds on delivering just one
home. So we need to look at the commerciality of that and understand whether that can be
carried out across the whole of our area of operation. We can't afford to do that, as
you can usually understand. So where we've got historic rights buys and we own one half
of a pair of semis and the other ones in private ownership,
then we need to look at what we do there.
And in some instances, we're gonna have to possibly
look at disposing.
In addition to the retrofit works that we do,
we also do component -based upgrades.
So we'll look at whether a home needs external wall
insulation or loft insulation, changing windows and doors
and that sort of thing.
And those give EPC improvements as well.
So the next question was around the data that we use to access, to assess the properties.
We use our asset data, so we have a lot of asset data that comes from the knowledge of
our stock based on historic stock condition surveys.
It also comes from replacements over historic, you know, historic replacement programmes.
So we use that data to generate an energy performance rating, which is the same as an
and EPCs, which is the same data criteria.
We know that EPC is a course metric.
It's probably used far more than it was ever intended to,
but it still gives a good representation
of our starting point for delivery of those retrofit works.
But when we're carrying out retrofit works and designs
under past 2035, the retrofit approach,
we use full SAP and that accounts also for energy demand
and energy use in that property.
And just a point to make is that whenever we're doing any kind of retrofit works, we
always consider the affordability for our customers in those designs.
So we won't just put in a new local form of heating system into a property if the property
isn't ready for it so that they don't spend too much money.
In the stock that we've got, we do have a number of Es and Fs, and most of those are
Refusals where and customers have historically refused those works so they might have a solid fuel heating system that they've
Lived with for years. That's that's what they enjoy they get cheap fuel
So they you know obviously under cost of living pressures. We're not going to force them to have an S
The round question on the number of properties in the district that need retrofit so
So, I mean, you could argue that every home that we own,
unless it's EPCA, will require retrofit at some point
in the future.
But in terms of the homes that we have, which are EPCD
and below, we've got around, we had around 580 homes of these.
I think it's around 4 ,800 in total that we have decent
homes responsibility for in the CDC local authority area.
Eighty of those have been put through the social
Housing Decarbonisation Fund programme, so we're just finalising those works at the
moment, closing those works down. We've also put about 170 of those through the
Eco4 programme, so they will have received solar PV and additional measures
associated with that through the Eco4 grant funding scheme. We're also
targeting another 68 in CDC area through the Eco4 programme and considering what
stock is left in the CDC area for the warm home social housing fund which we're
just mobilising at the moment. But it's fair to say with grant funding not every
home is suitable for the the past 2035 the retrofit process and particularly
if you're looking at things like the non -traditional homes they just can't be
delivered in the time that the grant funding kind of requires. I pause there
questions or should I join to carry on? A certain amount of what you were saying is
actually in the papers. Councillor Leighton would like to come back. I would also
have got two questions particularly interested in retrofitting. So Councillor Leighton.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:03:50
Yeah thank you very much Chair. You mentioned about retrofitting andputting an external wall and cavity wall installation. We've had some issues
I know in planning about external wall insulation,
which was quite a number of years ago
when I was on the planning committee.
So I'm being a bit historic and I'm not up to date.
So I confess that, but there was a bit of an issue
about what was happening on the outside of our houses.
Why do you not mention internal wall insulation?
I know it reduces a bit,
but if you get a really well insulated internal wall,
you do not need quite so many radiators and I think that might do you ever
consider that? Yeah thanks for the question. I mean internal wall insulation
Guest - 1:04:38
is quite a difficult one so the preference is to fit external wallinsulation or cavity wall insulation if you've got cavity wall. With internal
wall insulation you lose the thermal mass you also do to do it properly lose
a lot of internal space.
I know that I'm assuming that one of the schemes
that you might be referencing there was one where
we did look at internal wall insulation.
And we just couldn't fit it,
we couldn't make it work in the property.
The other thing about internal wall insulation
is that to do it well, you've got to effectively
take the property apart and apply it
so that you don't have any cold bridging.
So we do consider it and we do fit it where we can,
But it is very difficult to get that right.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:05:29
Look, we all know about getting to this EPC sea.One of the issues which around that is a lot of better EPCs
because they've got gas boilers, and I'm saying that gas boilers
do improve an EPC.
But bearing in mind going forward into the future,
we wouldn't be having gas boilers.
how many then of your housing stock would you say was at a seal or getting
towards it are going to be the problem of if you have to remove at some point
Guest - 1:06:06
the gas boilers how that's going to impact the EPC rating? Okay so under thenew SAP regime which is SAP 10 then so historically gas boilers have been quite
favourably looked at and you gain quite a lot of SAP points so for years we had
programme of installing new gas heating systems,
installing the infrastructure to be able to instal those gas
boilers, and that was great because that's even now is still
the cheapest form of heating for our customers,
although obviously it comes with a carbon output.
In the future, we need to look at that tipping point of when we
move away from gas under the roadmap to net zero,
but that obviously needs to stack up in terms of how
customers can afford that, because it's going to be a big change, and until there's some
kind of parity between gas prices and electric prices, then I think we need to be careful
how we move that forward at scale, because we're going to put a lot of people into pure
poverty.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:07:05
I fully appreciate that. It is a conundrum, isn't it? Does anybody else have any questionson this? Well, it remains unless you've got anything else you want to add. We really,
really so much appreciate you coming here so thank you all very much indeed
and I think we'd all say thank you we really appreciate it. The thing I discussed a
little bit before is if we could have some communication channel or some sort
of thing where we as counsellors can without having to go through all your
own easier way of connecting even if it's just an email it is quite it is
often quite a difficulty otherwise, so we'd appreciate that. Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:07:55
Right, well that was very interesting and I think very helpful. Excellent. And I thinkwe have noted the recommendation from an annual update from the registered
providers of social housing a year which would be very helpful and I think
productive. The next item on the agenda is the budget strategy and medium -term
11 Budget Strategy and Medium Term Financial Strategy Update
financial strategy update. We have got a cabinet member. There he is. I saw him. Then he was
Councillor Coleman. And our CFO, need officer on this is David Stanley. So please, could
you both come and give us your report. Patrick will you be going first?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:09:14
Thank you, Chair. I can't apologise for the length of the report because one thing I thinkwe've all learned, whether we've been here two years or 20, is that it gets a bit complicated,
a bit more complicated every year. But this is even more a period of uncertainty than
has been the case in the past with the approach of local government organisation. The long
delayed and largely in its total to be welcomed reset of fair funding across all councils
in England. It was overdue. Many councils have been hoping to do well and we feared
to do badly and indeed so we shall. But when one reads the content of the fair funding
2 .0 summary which is actually I think NXP rather than they're in the right order, you
can see that many of the changes in principle that have been proposed for the country as
a whole are not really something one would object to. But what I will close at this stage
by saying is that when one looks at the chart that shows that we're likely to be one of
a very small number of worst affected authorities in terms of our financial support. I believe
this is evidence of a principle I've heard evinced before, which is when you've set out
to make a very large series of changes, all of which individually seem to be sound, as
you add to the number of changes you're going to carry through, the more likely is you'll
perverse results and whilst our result is a bit more perverse, oh no it's not
perverse, it's a bit more unhelpful than we would hope for, a lot more really,
there are some councils who are going to do very well who are probably quite
surprised they're going to do well and there are certainly a few councils worse
off than ourselves such as I would suggest, Bolsover might be worse off than
us who are also going to be big losers. So that's probably where I better lower
the risk of saying complete rubbish and hand over to David.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:11:30
Thank you. I believe time is of the essence so I won't take too long. So this is a MTFSupdate and a budget strategy report. So in terms of where we are, the timing of this
report in mid -October, we were hoping for an update from the government in terms of
feedback from the consultation in early October, but that seems to have slipped somewhat, so
we're probably not expecting that until later in the month at the earliest.
So we are where we are with trying to interpret what the government's intentions are with
fair funding.
But in terms of what this report sets out, it sets out that since February 2025 there's
been a couple of significant consultations, fair funding 2 .0,
and around council tax administration sort of
modernising that.
Beyond that, the funding position in the MTFS hasn't been
updated because we are in a, I suppose, a position where there
is absolute certainty that the numbers that we would put into
this would change.
So I've gone with the, let's tell you the numbers again that
we had in February, rather than updating them for a forecast
that PIXEL or others have come up with, because there are
three main models being used, PIXEL, Institute of Fiscal
Studies, and LG Futures, they don't align.
So there is a difference between those MTFS forecasting models.
It doesn't give me confidence of putting a different number
into the MTFS.
That said, the budget gap for 26 -27 set out in this report has
reduced from 1 .6 million down to 950 ,000, although I know some
members would have got their calculators out and added up the
gap over the four years of the MTFS and come up with a bigger
number than may have been in the four years previously.
However, this is a position at the midpoint, I suppose,
of understanding what the prospects are for the council in the fair funding review.
In terms of that detail, we won't know that detail until the usual announcement, which
is about a day before parliament rises for its Christmas recess.
So we're not anticipating any announcement until we commence on the 15th, 16th of December
in terms of those detailed numbers.
But you'll see on page 52 of the report some analysis of what could be the funding position
as set out by PIXA, and I have caveated that with it's not robust, it's not credible, I
haven't included it.
I suppose to address the concern members might have that, well, you've only brought the,
This report only reduces the budget gap slightly, but there's still a budget gap.
There is going to be probably more funding than my usual optimistic position has set out, based on the PIXEL numbers.
My MTFS that's included in here doesn't include any ongoing assessment of what we may get from extended producer responsibility.
This year that was 1 .502 million.
We've had an extra 181 ,000 since that initial announcement was made.
So we've had 1 .6 million plus.
Indications are that next year's pot will be broadly the same in total.
How it's distributed remains to be seen.
But there could be some one -off or two years' worth of funding for that.
And of course, there are further budget and efficiency savings
and transformation savings that are being worked on by officers
that are being considered by Cabinet, but they're at an early
stage, they're not in a position to be included in this report.
So there is more to come on that particular issue.
I think I've noted down I'm cautiously optimistic, or as
optimistic as you would expect your CFO to be at this stage
of the planning process that that position will improve.
The degree to how much it improves is down to decisions
that we'll need to take as a council in terms
of those budgetary decisions where we go with transformation,
where we go with budget efficiency savings, but also
what that real impact from the fair funding review will be.
In terms of the budget strategy element of the report,
It follows a similar budget strategy to previous years,
so we're allowing for pay inflation of 3 % across
Publica, Yubico and Council staff.
Other than that, there is no other inflationary provision
other than where it's absolutely hard baked into contracts.
So it is pretty much a standstill budget
and budget holders have been told they've got to fit in some forms,
one that says budget pressures and one that says efficiency savings and you
could probably guess which one of those we'll be looking at in more detail and
more closely but we are doing that as part of a detailed review of all budgets.
There are some other pieces of work that are ongoing. Members will recall that in
both in July 2024 and in March 2025 the detailed transition plan for the
transfer of services from Publica to the council included
is one of the final decisions that the Publica budget would be
re -based for the start of 26 -27.
That piece of work is ongoing.
In terms of that, the detailed model has been produced.
I'm going to sit down with Alex and Frank from the Publica
finance side to review what that is looking like.
But I'm confident that's going to deliver a reduced cost to the
Council of what remains, it's the degree to how much that reduces. But there's a number
of items that are still progressing through and there's a number of other items that we'll
review for February, including the Treasury management position and other wider changes
to do with the budget and efficiency savings. We're happy to take questions.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:18:00
Thank you both for that introduction. Do I have any questions from any councillors? CouncillorCouncillor David Cunningham - 1:18:08
Hello. I know these are early numbers but they're not very nice are they reallywhen you think about it. So you're looking to save upwards of 15 % of the
service budget. In one year we're gonna find 15 % savings roughly. That seems like
a big stretch to me and even if you do that we're still looking at an 18
million pound gap by the time we get to 29 .30. Now I fully accept that these are all, you
know, up in the air and whatever, but doesn't that put pretty much all of the capital budget
pretty in the long grass, pretty much? Because I don't know how, if not we're just going
to be out on bended knee asking for money from somewhere else. Would you agree with
that?
I don't know if that's asked to.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:19:01
I don't agree, though I recognise the context that you describe.But I think what you're going to find, and I think what we have found in the past, ever
since our current CFO arrived, if not from earlier days, is that as we go through the
months leading up to a budget being set in February, the figures will only improve, not
get worse. But the figures can only improve or get worse when final figures arrive. Most
of those final figures will be very close to Christmas Eve when they arrive. One or
two maybe earlier. And so there's not a case in my view that the council is taking an overly
pessimistic approach at this stage. I say the council obviously, I mean actually finance
But certainly with my support he's ensuring that we don't get too optimistic and find
ourselves unexpectedly short of money at a late stage.
The earlier you know you've got the problem, the more time you have to deal with it.
And I think it's best summed up in the words of that great Bedford mayor, Mayor Dave, we're
aiming for no surprises.
And now for a little bit more content.
Councillor David Cunningham - 1:20:16
I think the other saying is hope is not strategy, isn't that the other saying?David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:20:22
In terms of the numbers, absolutely are terrible numbers.I would totally agree with the assessment that having a significant gap to close is not a great position for any CFO, for any council.
The approach I think that you've set out in terms of that pretty
much means every budget's going to be looked at and every budget
is going to have to take a reduction.
I think what I've tried to set out earlier is there's two ways
that number's going to reduce.
One is through budget and efficiency savings.
One is through the fair funding review numbers which are looking
better than my optimistic view that I took in February.
now. That isn't yet confirmed and there's a long way to go but I'm also of the view
that we shouldn't be looking to, I shouldn't be advising members to balance
the budget on the back of savings targets. So the inclusion of savings
within the current draught MTFS, the update, only recognises those savings where
there's almost absolute certainty they're going to happen. Now I do
We do recognise that in previous years there have been savings included where there is
some risk around that delivery.
That's part of what's being reviewed currently in terms of the street service, in terms of
how we can ensure that that's delivered at a lower cost but also provides residents with
the service that they need.
But we have, as an authority, looked at and taken some difficult decisions around the
zoning of the waste service. So we are in that position where the numbers are
absolutely terrible. This report sets out in Annex A, I think it is now, what
councils have had to do when they've gone with the begging bowl to MHCLG for
exceptional financial support. My intention is for this council to not be
in that position to ensure that members are getting I suppose a reasonable view
a reasonably pessimistic or optimistic view that you can choose of what our financial
position is. So we do have, I suppose, as it's set out in the MTFS, a reducing level
of funding, but we're still spending the same, if not more money, each year. You can't continue
to do that without either plugging that gap from reserves, which isn't considered sustainable,
or without making reductions in terms of cost or generating
additional income or where that funding comes through.
It's a mixture of those three things that will balance
the budget for 26, 27 and 27, 28.
I am required, I think it says so in the report,
to produce an MTFS for the next three years.
Those of you that are up to date with local government
real organisation may realise that part of that period crosses over with the period this
council doesn't exist, but I'm preparing it on a going concern basis, because there may
be a delay to LGR, there may not, but it would be foolhardy to say, well, anything beyond
31st March, 2028 is of no concern and we won't plan for it.
I think we still need to plan for that and keep that under review.
So yes, I agree with the assessment.
The numbers are horrible, but I would say there are a number of issues that are being
discussed in terms of how we can reduce costs.
There are some external factors that may come through and provide the council with more
funding than I've assessed.
And I think the risk of not being able to set a balanced budget for 26, 27, which is
what our legal requirement is, is lower as a result of some of those decisions and a
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:24:23
Councillor David Cunningham - 1:24:24
it was 12 months ago. Thank you. Sorry the only thing I would ask but I supposewe'll get the updates anyway is will ONS be getting regular updates on how those
savings, the 2 .1 million of savings that are expected, how they're coming along?
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:24:39
In terms of the MTFS update the number included in there includes some savingsthat were already identified in the February 2025 MTFS.
So one of the main constituent parts of that was an assumption that there would be a half
a million pound reduction in the Council's employer contributions to the local government
pension scheme.
That was on the basis of some detailed work, early work that we'd done with Gloucestershire
County Council pension fund and the actuary, given our funding position was in excess of
At the time that work was done and that position has improved, I'm reasonably confident that
will come through.
We yet to get the draught figures through from the tri -annual review that took place on the
31st of March.
That will give more confidence to those numbers.
Also included within those numbers in the MTS, the 2 .1, will be the 700 ,000 that the
outlines around vacancy management savings and that's something that corporate leadership
team and cabinet have been working on over the last couple of months and given the vacancies
that are being taken which don't have individuals in post, there's a high degree of confidence
that that budget can be released but certainly we will ensure that members of this committee
and cabinet are fully appraised of progress on balancing the budget.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:26:09
Thank you. I've got Councillor Jenkinson next.Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:26:12
Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for your presentations of preparation. I'vegot just two questions. The first is that on page 28 there's a list of objectives of
the Government given. How likely do you think it is that the Government will meet those
objectives on our behalf?
That's the first question.
And the second is, we are later on this afternoon
discussing the area plan.
My first impression is that it contains a large number
of risks and those risks could involve costs.
How confident are you that the provisions that you
have made are likely to cover any necessary further activities
to deal with risks, or could this actually generate risk
to the MTFS itself?
Thank you.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:27:26
In terms of, I suppose, those objectives,I think the government would say, and MHCLG would say, they are confident that the fair
funding 2 .0 consultation will achieve those objectives.
In terms of my particular view on that, the way in which funding has been allocated in
previous years, some of the information that feeds into the formulas that they use to allocate
have required updating for some time. The broad view that if a councillor has a
high need funding should follow that you can't disagree with. I think particularly
the bit that is really important is the third objective about having a multi -year
settlement. So we have since 2019 -20 been given single year settlements which is
really difficult to plan from. So a multi -year settlement be that a three
year, four year, two year would be completely welcomed whether we like what
is in that becomes somewhat irrelevant but it gives you something to plan from
having single year settlements where you're lurching from year to year and
having to sort of second -guess what's coming through. I don't think is a
sustainable position for the sector and that final point about empowering
councils to have great flexibility over sales fees and charges that remains to
seen because there is still quite a high degree of control from central
governments to how fees and charges are set, so our planning fees some of those
are nationally set, some of them are locally set and legislation dictates how
the fee has to be determined. So is it cost recovery, are you allowed to make a
surplus on it and how should any surplus be reinvested. So freeing councils from
that type of control and giving them more flexibility would be welcome but
without that detail it's difficult to judge. In terms of the second question
around the local plan, the area plan, there was just over a million pounds in
the local plan reserve at the end of the previous financial year. The council has
been successful in securing additional grant funding around about two hundred
and 30 ,000.
Currently, I would give an AMBA rating
as to whether the council's able to meet everything
in terms of the local plan within that resource.
This report does set out that we're
doing a review of reserves and balances.
And we'll need to take, I suppose,
the cost of delivering the local plan
and ensuring the local plan can be delivered by December 20,
25 and 26 sorry in terms of that time scale and the cost into account and
setting the budget and there will be some difficult decisions that members
will need to make if during the course of the next few months those costs
pressure start coming through on the local plan there's limited resources
that we may need to make some decisions about.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:30:30
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:30:32
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:30:34
Perhaps I could take up the point about the localplan and its progress because in many ways this is the the toughest challenge
that we have but at least we've always known it was there and I'm at the moment
very encouraged by the quality of staff have been recruited and to deal with
planning applications as well as preparing the local plan and that's the
point at which I think it's a it's sensible to recognise again the benefit
of insourcing our planning staff from Publica back to ourselves. This has
helped with recruitment where necessary since working for Publica as a
professional planner wasn't particularly attractive to people who spent years in
training were being told they couldn't have a decent pension, just a basic one.
So we've solved that major risk to a very large degree and we do have the
temporary perhaps benefit that
the announcement of the matching clearly increased housing land supply figures mean there are suddenly rather more
application fees and pre application fees coming into our planning department now
I don't want to suggest the place is rolling in dosh, but those are
income increases which we are duty bound to use to ensure that our local plan is
is exactly what it needs to be and is exactly when it needs to be.
And that's a big challenge as we know those of us who were here for a few years
where we got ever so many years behind with our local plan and had ever so many
unplanned developments, inappropriate on the edges of towns such as Fairford and Tettbury
and indeed didn't get as much out of the developers as we would have done if those areas or suitable other areas
had been in our up -to -date local plan.
It wasn't up to date and the reason it wasn't up to date in my view, with some evidence
I've had verbally, is that we didn't budget enough in those days, we of course being not
the current administration.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:32:37
I think we've got Councillor Harris next please.Thank you chair.
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:32:41
Apologies for being late.I'm at the Choir Hall, so I haven't been slacking and I wasn't at the Mop Fair.
Yeah, a couple of observations and a couple of questions, if I may.
I mean, David and Mike previously and Patrick do a really good job in difficult circumstances pulling a budget together.
Let's be honest, we're in a very tight financial envelope, so there is very little wriggle room.
And, you know, we can have political arguments in the Chamber for Council at budget night,
but I'm willing to bet that any budget that the opposition put together would look very similar to the budget that we have before us and have done over the past few years.
And the current situation that we're in and the papers that have been put together tonight highlight something, don't they?
They highlight that for far too long local government has been chronically underfunded by government.
If you couple that with the increase in demand, if you couple that with all of the challenges that we have faced as a local authority,
be it a COVID pandemic, an energy crisis, refugee crisis, etc., etc., then you can see that why we're in the problem that we're in.
And that's before I even mention the fact that administrations here at this council cut council tax,
which is now having a material impact on our budget now because we've foregone money.
So, you know, the wider point on this and the strategic point is
that we are in a very, very challenging backdrop that many
local authorities raise and we are literally being set up to
fail by the last government and indeed by this government.
And, you know, I don't think local government reorganisation
is going to happen on the timetable the government
think it is.
And I would not be surprised if we are still sat here in five
years' time.
So, you know, that is the challenge that we face.
The good news is that what I've read in this report is that we
have got a prudent budget that, while it doesn't answer the
questions of what we're going to do at that point, it does at
least start on a bit of a path and a road map to make sure
we're in the best financial shape we possibly are
at that point.
The good news is that Jim McMahon, the local government
minister, as was, said that the labour government won't let any
local council issue a Section 104 notice.
So in his words, if you've got a problem, let us know and we'll help you out.
So hopefully we're not at that point just yet, but that's reassuring to hear.
The bad news is he got reshuffled out, so God only knows if that stands.
But I think the point is we do have a government that don't want to see any councils issuing Section 104 notices,
and I would hope that would give us some reassurance that if we do engage with MHC or G, they will at least talk to us and we have a dialogue.
In terms of the budget, Patrick or David, I'm not sure, you know, clearly we've got
outlined a number of savings that we need to be made and I know one of my
real frustrations when I was the leader was that trying to get savings out of
Publica and indeed Ubico was sometimes a little bit like pulling teeth.
Indeed it's one of the reasons we bought staff back from Publica. So how
confident are you a few years on from when we first started having these
challenges, how confident are you that we'll be able to
realise some of those savings and have we got indications that
public and any UBCO are turning the around to meet
that challenge?
I think that would be question number one.
You weren't here, Councillor Harris,
I've been in the meeting.
We have got, as you know, the local plan later.
We are trying to keep things crisp and questions succinct.
And I know you're experienced in this and you've made very good
points but I think if everybody can bear that in mind that we are trying to ask
the questions on this. Absolutely chair that's why I condensed ten questions into two.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:36:45
So in terms of the question around how confident in terms of thepublic savings so detailed transition plan rebasing of the contract I'm
confident that will result in a lower cost for the council it's not quite the
same as a saving in the traditional sense that I think Councillor Harris is
referring to but that's part of I suppose more robust contract management
that we have now in place around our interactions with public her
The establishment of the Publica Office Forum will ensure that performance is more top of
the list.
The shareholder forum already exists.
There's the mechanisms for ensuring that we're focused on delivering efficiencies through
Publica that are now in place.
In terms of the approach of taking the UBICO, we have, certainly if I add at least two meetings
with Yupiko on budget setting communicated the view that we have that
whilst there will be pressures on their budget next year in terms of the pay
award we are expecting Yupiko to look at how efficiently they can deliver that
and we are expecting a contribution towards that cost it's not a blank cheque
from the council so I think there's some way to go with some of those
relationships but we are formalising some of our expectations as to how that
budget setting will work, whether we'll see significant cash reductions for 26 -27 remains
to be seen, but we're certainly pushing for that to be part of the 27 -28 process.
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:38:23
I think we'll go to Councillor Slater, we'll see if we've got time. We were given halfCouncillor Gina Blomefield - 1:38:29
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:38:35
an hour for this topic and we've already exceeded that. I know the local plan is important,but the budget is just as important because if there's one thing a council
does it is to set a budget so I know we I know we want to get through it but I do
think it's important that we scrutinise this as closely as possible and we're
able to feedback but I'd take your point chair and I understand that we do have
very long meetings for some reason. I appreciate it is it is extremely
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:39:00
difficult keeping it all together. Let's cancel this later I've got some questionsvery short questions and I don't know if anybody else wants to bring anything
Councillor Tony Slater - 1:39:12
else in but Councillor Slater, your turn. Okay three questions the budgetpressure section is that the phase two ongoing cost? Don't need to answer
immediately. If so can that be sort of perhaps more clearly represented and
given that you're having conversations to possibly reduce that impact would it
be better to bake those into the forecast and then use any savings as
really in the relief section. The second question I've got is over resourcing
so we're going to spend a lot of time and effort on local government reviews
for which I guess we're not recording specific officer time against that and
And indeed, as I understand it, we don't record what everybody's working on on any given day.
So unless we've introduced some sort of system where you're logging time against a cost centre
or a project, as happens in commercial world, we're never going to know how efficient people
are or how we can make them more efficient and cut out any particular deadwood.
And is it possible to see a resource count over a period of time, say the last five years?
I know it's difficult with the public transition and everything, but we must know what we had
and what we've gone to.
So is it possible to see how that resource total works out?
Because we've signed off several projects over the last couple of years which say this is going to save two FTEs or four FTEs.
And it will be interesting to see how that actually materialises.
So can we see things like temps, contractors, vacancies and FTEs? Is that possible? Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:41:27
First, if I may, Chair, I do think that referring, appearing to refer to some of our staff aspotentially deadwood is a little bit out of date in the choice of phrase. And it's unhelpful
because our staff, obviously not to the same degree, and perhaps not even every single
one of them, including our contractors and our agents, the agency staff we bring in,
I don't think we should start with the assumption that any of them are deadwood.
We have had to pay more for agency staff while we've been managing the vacancies that we're
now managing to recruit to because of the public issue amongst others.
There's been a shortage of enforcement staff, which I'm sure I do know you're aware of.
And it's interesting, I think I understand the point you're trying to say, can we show
whether we achieved our numbers?
what we do know is that the half a million pound saving in the Yubico
collection of domestic waste has been achieved. It wasn't easy, there were some
quite lengthy perhaps, but certainly for those affected teething problems in a
very small number of areas, one and a bit wards really on a Friday was the main
problem. I'm assured by the Councillor most affected, Councillor Judd, that
things are going very well with the new systems, with the final adjustment made there. And
I think that, you know, to set out to save half a million, which is clearly to the credit
of my predecessor Mike Evony, and of course David Stanley and the team in Yubico, not
to me, but to achieve that with a real achievement, and in some councils that would have been
a rarity. But generally speaking, this is a professionally run council, all our staff
deserve respect. I think one of the reasons I'm provoked slightly by you is that I was
lucky enough to attend a welcome ceremony and picnic afterwards held in
this room for the public of staff transforming. You may well have been
transferring in. And what I was struck by was the complete attention, the positive
attitude and of course the excellent presentation by our interim chief
executive. And most of the food got out as well so that was good. So serious point
there, we've got the right atmosphere and the right environment to
encourage our staff to give it the best because we treat them as the valuable
Councillor Tony Slater - 1:43:47
people they are. Thank you. So I don't doubt that everybody works very hard andis very good at their job it's just working smarter rather than harder.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:43:59
So very quickly budget pressures in the table on page 64 it says phase 2 FYEthat's the full year effect of the phase 1 and well the phase 2 transfer phase 1
already included in the service budget on the top line.
That will be reallocated into the service budgets when we recast the MTFS for February.
But some of the savings that are shown in that 2 .2 million are taking out of the budget
some of the things that were put into the budget last year where we've reviewed, do
we really need some of those posts that we thought we needed given LGR has turned up
and that impact has, I suppose that need has lessened.
In terms of, I suppose, where are we in the, I suppose,
capacity, sorry, no, capacity, there is on page,
I did have it, I've now lost it, I think it's on page 60
of the report, paragraphs 5 .22 and 5 .23,
but I think they're available elsewhere in the executive summary.
This builds on the, what we set out in the Q1 financial performance report where we are
taking advantage of an approach to vacancy management that will allow us to build a capacity
reserve to enable the backfilling of particular roles as those LGR pressures come through.
And to give you a hypothetical example, it may be that once we move into the implementation
phase of whatever the government determines is the most like the preferred solution for
Gloucestershire, that might take myself and three people out saying all you need to do
is spend 100 % of your time for the next two years implementing that reorganizational change
to ensure that a safe transfer of services can take place on the 1st of April 2028.
It is that fund that will then backfill a role.
So it will be less about recording how much of my time or someone's time is spent doing LGR.
It's pretty much probably going to be 100 % of your time needs to be spent doing LGR and we'll backfill your role.
In terms of the point around the resource chart, I think that would be very difficult given the opaqueness, I suppose,
of understanding what roles we were paying for and getting through the public a contract.
And I think what we tried to show with the phase one and the phase two transfers is that
we brought in a number of roles.
And in some cases we've increased roles in certain service areas.
So particularly when we talk about the local plan, we have put more team members into planning
services as a whole and changed the structure of planning services.
So you would argue we're paying more for staff than we would have been under the existing
arrangements under publica.
I think that would be very difficult to provide.
I'm not sure what value it would give the committee in
understanding the historic position.
What you might want to know is what's the projection going
forward, how does that play out, given some of the challenges
we'll have around recruitment retention, given LGR.
So there is a risk that as that LGR date creeps forward,
individuals may make decisions saying, well, I can't wait to
find out what's going to happen in Gloucestershire.
I'm going to move to Unit 3X, which has already been
established, and it's how we then keep business as usual
going and what resources we need to do for that,
and maybe of more relevance.
Dr. Anne Pritchard.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:47:46
Right.Thank you for all of that.
I just wanted to ask my questions.
I think actually you covered it, whether there was any provision
made if CDC is not transferred to a unitary at the point.
I think you covered that you have looked at that,
but that's obviously going to be a potential concern,
as we know that these unitaries, it doesn't always
come to schedule.
I just wanted to have, if there's any idea that we have
so far, is how much additional income we're getting
from second homes and empty homes, council tax.
Now, I know that actually a lot of that tax will obviously
be passed to GCC, so GCC members will be getting some more of that, but it would be interesting
to see whether, I mean that's one additional income stream that we've got. And I'm imagining
in table ES2 there's a large budget for environment. I presume that's going to be the waste and
recycling vehicles. Thank you.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:48:48
We're dealing with the last question first, yes. So we have retained the provision withinthe capital programme for those waste vehicles, the report does set out that
there was quite a detailed review going on currently as to what does need
replacing, what doesn't need replacing, when the timing of that would be due and
fundamentally I suppose for myself and Michelle and others how we finance those
and I suppose I'm working from the position of given the high cost of
borrowing for short life assets,
that's what we would try and avoid doing.
But that depends on the scale of what needs replacing.
In terms of council tax,
second homes are to get some data from Andy Fathers
in terms of where we are currently.
I'll provide a response on that.
I haven't analysed that,
but whatever second homes income is collected broadly
by the billing authority,
only around 7 % of that comes to us
with 14 % to the police and crime commissioner and 74 % to the county council. So we made
a prudent estimate in the budget. I would imagine given the numbers I've seen very briefly,
we're probably slightly above that, but we won't know that until later in the year when
we do the estimate on the collection fund, but certainly we'll bear that in mind and
provide that information in a future form to the committee.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:50:18
All right, if we've got no more questions for anybody, I don't feel at this point thatthere's any particular recommendations that we're looking to make to Cabinet. So are we
happy to thank David and Patrick for introducing and leading on this?
Yes.
And I think that because we've got 10 minutes to go and the work plan won't take too long,
unless anybody's got something they want to mention on it. Councillor Spivey and
Councillor Harris weren't here earlier when I mentioned that we're actually
removing one of the items from the November agenda because it's going to
be discussed at Cabinet this month and so we'll be doing it retrospectively and
that's on the council tax support scheme and probably wasn't something which
really needed to come to O &S anyway. Was there anything else, any observations on
12 Work Plan and Forward Plan
work plan. Now, so what I'm going to say, oh we could, yes we can fit them in
quickly. I don't think we had a report from Dylis Meale on HOSC. I will just, we
13 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees
certainly have had one from Councillor Jenkinson on the Glossary Economic
Growth Committee and it was a very clear and long thing. Was there
anything that Councillor Jenkinson wanted to add or to draw our attention
particularly from that thing. And if we've had anything from Councillor Neill?
No. And Councillor Neill said the meeting is tomorrow and she'll provide an update for the next meeting. Fantastic. Thank you very much. So Councillor Jenkins.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:51:50
Very little to say. The report is there and hopefully that's helpful, but it's interesting the Ofcomdata
is demonstrably poor for
about mobile signals.
I didn't actually give you the link, but there is a tool
whereby you can cheque your local postcode to see what the signal
is in reality as opposed to the signal that Ofcom think that we
are supposed to have.
And I think it's interesting to see that Ofcom is not up to
speed and they know that they're not up to speed and they need to
change their way of analysing.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:52:29
Anyway, what we'll do now is have, if everybody would agree to this, propose a second 10 -minutebreak before we go into the local plan. Are we all unanimous that we should have a 10 -minute
break? Thank you very much. We'll be back at just about five past six.
14 Cotswold District Local Plan (2011-31) Regulation 18 Consultation
Thank you all for being back.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:53:03
We are now live again and move on to the last topic, which is one of the most importantthis afternoon, and that's the Cotswold District Local Plan on Regulation 18 Consultation.
I'm sure everyone present is aware this is a major item with the hugely increased housing
target set by the government in an area where 80 % of the land is within the Cotswold National
Landscape, which means these new housing developments will largely be compressed into the areas
outside that protected landscape. Due to the importance of the issue and the time it could
take to run through everyone's questions, Councillor Jenkinson, the Vice -Chair and I
have decided to take a slightly different approach to handling the committee's questions.
Each member will be able to ask one question, and if they feel
necessary, can ask a supplementary at that time.
And then we will go through each of the members, and then we can
come back to the first people who ask questions and continue
in that way to make sure that everybody has a fair chance to
ask their questions and have them answered by our cabinet
member and committee.
Oh, have we got Geraldine? Geraldine, you are also going to be.
So we've got Councillor Layton, our cabinet member for Housing and Planning.
We have got the leader of our council, Mike Evermy.
And we've also got Geraldine LeConte, Assistant Director for Planning Services.
And Jo Simmons? No. Yes.
Ah. Sorry, I didn't quite catch that.
Helen Martin.
Helen Martin. Oh, sorry. Helen Martin. I should know.
And Matt Britton.
So we've got a very high quality calibre of people present to help
navigate us this way through and to answer our questions.
So I will ask, I don't know, I think Arne that might have me,
we'll be kicking off.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Obviously this is a hugely important decision which we will
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:55:15
be taking at cabinet on Thursday and therefore the papers are in front of you this afternoon.You will recall that we took a decision at the council in July to update our local plan
and that was a decision which every single member of the council who was present supported.
And subsequent to that, obviously our officers have been working very hard to get us to the
afternoon. One of the key things which we didn't talk about in July but became
clear from our officers in discussion with an inspector, you know, obviously part of
their process is they go away and talk to inspectors is that it would be
preferable within the Regulation 18 consultation which is obviously this
consultation which we are about to agree if we agree on Thursday to go out to, it
would be preferable to indicate potential development sites. So that's
know. Potentially some of us weren't expecting that but that obviously is in
the papers that you've got in front of us and obviously I acknowledge the
concern and anxiety that that can cause by putting names and numbers against a
potential expansion of settlements. Just to let members know we've had three
meetings of our local plan oversight board which has been overseeing the work
of our officers in this regard with questions and healthy challenge. But just
to reassure members that it's not our job and we haven't been changing any of
the indicative allocations that are before you this evening. Many of you, if
not all of you, may have been on the the all -member briefing that we had last
Tuesday, so thank you for those who are on that, joining in that and engaging in
the process. You may also be aware that subsequent to that, you know, we've done...
Matt Iber is... other officers sat here, our head of comms, been doing a lot of
work, putting out information into the media about the process, what we're doing,
why we're doing it, and as you alluded to, Chair, you know, the challenge that the
government have set us in terms of the number of houses they say we need to
plan for. We've also sent out communications to town and parish
councils and we are setting up town and parish council forums in early November.
I think the invitations are due to go out for those tomorrow. There'll be one in the
north of the district and one here in Cirencester. I think you know we can all
recognise this is a big a big issue. It's a massive decision that we ultimately
will be taking as a council towards the end of next year if we adopt the local
plan that comes out at the end of this and it's going to be a difficult process
because you know we're talking about significantly changing the fabric of our
district but I'd like to remind members and anyone watching this at home is the
alternative is that we just let it happen by piecemeal development and what
that means is you don't get the infrastructure alongside the housing and
you you have the continuation of the problems that we have currently in
settlements like Moreton and Fairford and Tepary where we had that speculative
development. The plan, the houses are built and we didn't get the
infrastructure and that's what we as a council are trying to stop happening
again by taking a local plan. So happy to stop there and if Juliet has anything to
add and then obviously welcome to take questions from members of the committee.
Thank you. Thank you I would like to add something that's okay chair very briefly
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:58:52
As you've both said, it's the government that is enforcing usto look at these numbers and try and find places.
The places we've looked at are not our choices.
We ask for sites to come forward.
We can't say, oh, we want to have a field there
or a field there.
I've already received emails giving us suggestions.
Why aren't you building here?
Which I, you know, we can't do that.
We've got to go with what we've got.
I'd also like to say that if we don't do a local plan
and get it in on time, which is what we're rushing to do,
which all our members know about
because they voted unanimously to do it,
is that we will be out of date for this current local plan
and we'll have to go to whatever the government wants us
to do with their local plan.
So they will be, apart from the developers doing piecemeal,
they will decide what's gonna happen.
and I think we as councillors with all our board members who know what what our
district is like, what our communities are like, what people want, what
infrastructure is needed desperately, is that we don't want that taken out of our
hands which is why it's so important to get this local plan as we're working on
it now through and adopted in early 2027. Thank you.
I mean, who would like to start the questions?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:00:19
Councillor Jenkinson and then Councillor Turner.Thank you.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:00:27
Thank you very much to the officers and to the cabinet members responsible on this.I want to say that as I approach the response that I really do recognise the professionalism and expertise and concern that officers have about this.
I am completely convinced that they are trying to do a very good job and have relevant skills and so on to do that.
So I'm approaching it from a very positive view.
But I think it's also in the best interests of themselves and Cabinet and Council and especially our residents
that we approach it with a bit of benevolent scepticism and a friendly critical eye.
So my first question that I get this time is this.
Is it not fair to say that the overall plan is highly risky?
And
And consequently, does it not need further clarification overall for the Cabinet about
that risk?
I note that there is a section that goes through various risks and what is being done about
them, but the overall sense of how likely it is that this can be achieved in the timeframe
that we are going for, the possible risks that that could affect the way government
would respond, the danger of impacting our people and so on.
My overall sense is if Cabinet want to assess the situation of risk and whether we have
adequate resources, there ought to be some kind of overall analysis that gives them a
good indication of that in the round, and it's not there in this document.
And I have this question in mind from the point of view of a possible motion.
So please give us your response.
Thank you. I don't think I agree it's highly risky.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:02:33
I mean, clearly any plan to do something in a relatively short timeframe for a local plan carries risk.One of the key things we're looking at, and we've got to this point on time to reassure
members that, you know, if this is the grocery cabinet on Thursday, we will be going out
on the timescale that we said back when we were in front of you in July.
But I am very mindful of the risk of delay, which is the biggest single risk, I think,
in my view.
And indeed, you know, the risks around the financial resourcing.
And, you know, I think you asked a similar question earlier to the chief finance officer
on that.
And, you know, he and I and the cabinet member are very aware that, you know, we need to
make sure that we have the correct resourcing to deliver.
So I think, yes, there is a risk.
Part of the oversight board that we're looking at is how do we create an ongoing risk register
that we look at every month on that.
I think you know we have to as members recognise that we operate in a political
environment and you know as it's been said already that the government can
change policy that's a risk but I think we have as a council made a decision
which we are as the cabinet are implementing to deliver a local plan and
you know the first stage of that public stage is the stage we're about to go
into and that is on time but I'm very mindful of you know the further the risk
and I look forward to hearing what your what your suggestion is in terms of a
recommendation later Angus. I don't know if any officers wish to add anything or
they're happy with my response on that. Yeah, no they don't.
By supplementary then is is there any evidence of a track record of other
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:04:33
councils going through a process as rapidly as this with as large measure of change asthis? Is there a demonstration that this is very achievable from past experience?
Officer - 2:04:50
Thank you. Happy to respond on that. So it is an ambitious timetable. It does normallytake some authorities longer than this to go through it, but there are authorities that
have done this and in fact any of the members who were involved in the planning advisory
service peer review that happened about March time, one of the peer members there came from
authority where they'd actually recently adopted a local plan and then they'd done it in 12
months. So it is possible but it is ambitious.
I'd just like to add to that. Yeah, we are going at a pace. We're certainly going at
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:05:25
pays for the part two of it. But remember we did an awful lot of work onpolicy so all of that we had done earlier so we're not doing the whole
thing in one mad rush. The policies we had got basically completed and we'd ran
a reg 18 on those as well. There have been a few more policies added to that
and that will be all part of this reg 18 but we've done a lot of work.
All right, well thank you for that. It's Councillor Turner, please.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:05:54
Councillor Clare Turner - 2:06:00
Thank you. So yeah, I think we're all agreed that we need the local plan update as soonas possible. And so from a scrutiny perspective, I think the key issues for me are around whether
we've got the process right. So fundamentally, are we satisfied that we would reach the same
strategic options if we have more time to consider this. I fully accept that we
need to go at pace but have we got the process right? Would we reach the same
conclusions on the strategic options that are being put forward had we had more time?
I think that needs an officer response. I think that's right.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:06:37
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:06:43
Hi, Matthew Britton, I'm a principal planning policy officer in the planningpolicy and infrastructure team. Essentially the strategic options, they're based on layers
of information that we've collected over the years such as various corporate sites, so
Seat 10 - 2:06:58
we know at the moment what land is available. And then on top of it we've done a broad locationstudy which essentially looks from a very high level at what parts of the district are
Indictively suitable for well more less constrained for development. There's no areas which are absolutely free of constraints and
that allows us to
Establish like parts of the district where there's potential for strategic growth
So if you those two things to sort of get to and where we are and but this isn't like the final
Strategic options this is like an indicative position where we are at the moment to test development strategy options
So in the upcoming consultation it also includes a call for sites as well.
So we're expecting some further sites to be submitted.
It might be that some site options as well get changed a little bit as well.
So yeah, based on – yeah, it's not been constrained by time essentially where we've
come to this position.
But just to say that this is like – this is an iterative process essentially.
and as we move towards the next stage in the local plan process that's when it
Officer - 2:08:14
will really be formed up as like this is our strategy these are the sites sothat's part of the next stage of the process but yeah hope that answers your
Councillor Clare Turner - 2:08:24
questions. I think I would like to have a supplementary. Yes just toCouncillor Clare Turner - 2:08:27
clarify once you get that firmed up is there another opportunity to consult onCouncillor Lisa Spivey - 2:08:37
Yes, so this upcoming consultation is a Regulation 18 consultation and thenthere's a further Regulation 19 consultation on what we think is that
the plan that we would submit to the planning. So yeah there's two further
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:08:54
stages of consultation. I have Councillor Spivey. Thank you.Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:08:57
Well, this, yeah, I mean, it just is quite a shocking bit of work, isn't it? We've discussedthis at length and I guess until you see it really down in black and white, you don't
really realise the whole scale of this. And we know that 80 % of the district is in the
area of outstanding national beauty. So clearly means that there is going to be a concentration
of houses and the government's ridiculous targets. And I'd like to put on record my thanks to the
leader for lobbying government hard on that. And I hope that you will be continuing to do that.
We really, really must be making the case that these are ludicrous targets for the Cotswolds.
I mean, we're in a rock and a hard place doesn't really
encapsulate it and I'm a massive fan of Joni Mitchell and I feel quite frankly
that right now we are paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. We may as
well bring in the big yellow taxi because it might as well be New York. I
mean seriously, Antony Cruces, 600 more houses, a new settlement in Driffield and
in Preston. I mean this is just bomb cars. However, I appreciate the work that's
been done. I appreciate the really hard choices that are going on here. So I
guess my first sort of plea is to continue please please and I would ask
that's a recommendation that we make to cabinet is to continue that lobbying and
everything that we can do to progress on that. My question really is, what
alternatives have we and I guess this is following on to Claire's question really
is that, you know, we say that we're going out to consultation and it's great and I've
got residents from Sheffield here in the room today and I'm sure that my communities will
be really, really responding to this. But given the rock and the hard place that we
find ourselves in, what alternatives really do we have? Because my understanding on this
is that if we don't place the houses somewhere and we don't prove that we have a five -year
land supply, then we will simply be in a place of free -for -all with developers taking what
they can, building what they can, us losing things on appeal and essentially not having
plan -led development.
So for those of us that really want to continue to live in paradise, what can we do?
Thank you.
Thank you, Lisa.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:11:36
Yeah, I totally get the point that you're making.Yeah, you and I and ward neighbours,
large chunks of the indicative numbers are in our wards.
And that's, you know, it's not in the national landscape.
And I point members to 310 in the report,
where it says, given the scale of the housing park,
it is likely that all deliverable and development sites
in sustainable locations for growth will likely need to be allocated for
development in the local plan. The 18 ,000 figure, it's 18 years and just over a
thousand every year, means in a district like ours essentially places that come
forward that are developable are on the list. That's why they're all in in the
localities that you can see in the papers.
And just to reassure you, I will be continuing to lobby and I'm looking at what more we can do working with our head of communications
to make further
representations to actually demonstrate to the government
this is the impact of what the numbers are that you've given us. It's not a theoretical thing now.
Actually, the reality is we're looking at building new settlements. We're looking at
four or five times sizing villages in order to be able to deliver the numbers that you've
given us.
And that's not to say we do want and we do need particularly affordable housing.
We're not against housing.
What we're challenging is that the numbers that we've been given are just so large that
they are making our officers' lives and our residents creating anxiety.
And I totally get that.
But I think we just have to continue to do both
as a responsible council.
We have to work through what the numbers mean
at the same time as challenging them.
But I do understand what you're saying.
Did you want to have a supplementary at this point?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:13:39
Do I have a second question if I get the opportunity?Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:13:42
It's not supplementary.Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:13:43
Thank you.Well, I hope so.
It was Councillor Slater who has a question.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:13:48
Thank you.Councillor Tony Slater - 2:13:51
I think we're in a rare situation that we're all completely agreed, whichever side of the room we sit on.And thanks to the efforts for Mike for lobbying the government and keep on doing so.
So my question is more sort of down amongst the reeds.
I mentioned on the call that evening is in a steep rally and I'd be interested to see where the 70 homes are going for.
But the real question is, I understand we won't get the infrastructure benefits, but
would it not be easier to spread that 70 amongst, say, my six other villages in my ward, which
you might be able to absorb with a bit of infill and slight extension on the envelope
rather than dumping 70 on one village and I know we've got away lightly
compared to a lot of other areas but would it be is that is that possibility
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:14:59
Officer - 2:15:02
is the question. So the way that the development strategy is based is we'veassessed all settlements in the district well there's 49 of the largest
settlements I should say. We've assessed their level of services, facilities,
employment provision, public transport and provision and their size and
essentially that creates, it's called a settlement rolling function study and
that's where you get these settlements by some settlements are being and
proposed as non -principal settlements and as principal settlements and others
as rural settlements. So the whole basis is that you're locating development
closest to where those facilities and services and employment are located. So if
you if you put housing in a village that's not close to those facilities it's
likely that people will drive and they won't have access to those facilities.
That's what we're trying to avoid. So essentially that's where it's
where it's being focused on those assessments. But just to assure you
in evening. The figure for evening includes extant planning permissions
already so there's that mill and planning permission and that's already
counted in the figure. So I think there's actually 27 of those which are already
included. And then also because there's already been in the past since the
beginning of our last local plan period and quite a lot of what we call windfall
development and so there's sites that aren't allocated in the local plan and
those are sort of we look at those on and how many they deliver each year and
we sort of factored that in in terms of like how many they're going to be
delivered in the future so the figures they include extent planning permissions
and these windfalls as well so actually there's not a specific site proposed in
Thank you.
You wanted to...
Councillor Cunningham.
Thank you Madam Chair for indulging me.
I just wanted to follow up on that actually.
Matt, we've discussed this before you and I.
Councillor David Cunningham - 2:17:02
Is there any chance that you could show your workings on some of these?Because you and I have discussed that some of the data is based on quite old snapshots
in time.
April from 24 for instance.
and that we are extrapolating our previous windfalls over a period of time
to give us a forward projection of potentially more windfalls.
Is it possible to lay that out?
Because some of the numbers we've looked at, you and I have discussed this,
seem incongruous, but we can explain them away by virtue of you saying,
well, this is already in the books, this is what we had in windfalls,
and this is what we're saying could go forward.
So is it possible that you could show us some type of formula or give a more detailed understanding
of where those new dwelling numbers came from?
Potentially.
Officer - 2:17:59
I mean, we have already in the public domain, there's a report that publishes that we haveall of the extent planning permissions and houses that have been completed, which are
to be counted towards the housing number so that's already there. We've already
got the a windfall estimate in our housing land supply report and we've
sort of apportioned that you know according to how much how many windfalls
have been delivered historically in each settlement so I'm sure we could provide
that. The one thing we don't want to do in this consultation is get into site
specifics of like what's what new development sites have been allocated
So we're keen to keep this on high level development strategy options and the
next stage in the Public Council, the regulation 19 stage is
where we look at the sites. So what we're dealing with here is those high level
numbers. So I'm keen to not get into that that level of site specific detail at
the moment and also just to say that the numbers for those sites as
are based on our current understanding and we are doing this call for sites and
we currently am completing further evidence -based studies so it's just a
point in time at the moment and so it might be that some sites fall away it
might be that other sites get added so we just want to keep this consultation
high level and focused on the growth strategy options rather than the sites
because otherwise it's a can of worms. That's absolutely fine I don't want you
to say why evening's not really going to get 70.
Councillor David Cunningham - 2:19:33
I'm not asking for that sort of detail.I'm asking for something because the question we're all
going to get asked, as ward councillors is,
how on earth are you going to put 40 in here?
How on earth are you going to put 20 in here?
We're all going to get those questions.
If there is a, I don't know, a paragraph or whatever
that says the indicative numbers,
and if I got a pound for every time I said indicative
in the last two weeks, I'd be a very rich man.
If we can just say, these numbers were brought about
by exactly what you've just said. The detail is here over in this report. This is what's
already extant. This is what's in windfall. And this is how we came up with the number.
It will go a long way, I think, to head off a lot of the things you're going to get in
the Reg A team. So if you put that on the website somewhere that just explains where
those indicative numbers arrived at, sort of come up, I think it would be helpful. I'm
not asking for a particular thing, but bled into it in particular. No, sorry.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:20:30
Thank you. Will you take that away Matt to have a look at?And you might want to respond more on that in a moment. We have got Councillor Harris.
Thank you chair.
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:20:42
Yeah, well, I think we'll start by thanking the officers for the hard work that they're doing and you know,it's going to be a very weird
few years, isn't it? Because instinctively I think I'm against pretty much everything that you put in this document,
but I recognise the position that we're in.
You know, again, I don't want to reiterate,
we're in this position because the government have given us
a housing target that is totally bonkers, quite frankly.
80 % of our area is area of outstanding natural beauty,
and we're having to sandwich as much of it as we possibly can
into the 20 % that is, that isn't area of outstanding
natural beauty.
And I think, actually, the indicative reaction from people
over the last week is a real concern about two things.
First of all, we're going to, in some of these communities,
we're going to fundamentally move away from what makes
their area special, i .e.
being a rural community, you know, that village life,
you know, being in the countryside.
And second of all, huge concerns about infrastructure.
We always talk about infrastructure, don't we?
Across the Cotswolds, we've got a situation where infrastructure
is creaking already.
Every time there's a bit of rain, the drains are up,
or the sewage is pumping out into the road.
You know, we have a real issue.
And I think my issue with planning,
not just in this district, but across the board,
is that new development, infrastructure upgrades
when new developments come along,
only really take into account the impact of that development.
We've got many longstanding issues
that just aren't being addressed
because of the crazy system that we have.
And it's ironic, isn't it,
that last week when this was announced,
we talked about infrastructure.
The NHS announced that we have yet another downgrade
at Sire Ancestor Hospital.
We are a growing community as these documents show.
And we're reducing infrastructure even further.
So don't worry, I'm coming to a question.
I think for me, there are already
lots of unanswered questions.
I'm not sure all of us have had emails in the past few days
about this.
I've certainly had a few today, funnily enough, including from
residents in Driffield and Harnhill.
So I think yourself, Mike, Matt, Julia, you've done a good job of
communicating so far, but clearly there are going to be
lots of unanswered questions.
And of course we can put things on the website and we can try
and get things in the press.
Are there any sort of plans to undertake a bit of engagement,
you know, particularly these large settlements we're talking
about, Driffey or Kemble, Amity Cruces, Preston, the City of Confederate, Morton in Marsh,
the scientist and so on and so forth. Is there a bit of a plan to have a village -style meeting?
That's what somebody suggested to me where actually you can put your case, because I
think you've put it really well. We're not doing this because we want to and we're sort
of crazy about huge housing developments and want to develop the consoles. We're doing
this because the government are forcing us to do it. And if we don't do it, they will
simply take planning powers from us and do it anyway. You know, it's blackmail, that's
So is there a bit of a plan to start, you know, a bit of face -to -face contact with our
communities?
I think Councillor Spivey is having, I think you're already organising a village meeting,
aren't you, in your perch.
Is there a bit more of a plan, if not to organise them, and certainly a willingness to engage
with those and try and answer questions in a controlled manner, because we appreciate
these things can be contentious.
Yes.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:24:15
Thank you, Joe, for your points.Yeah, obviously similar to Lisa's
in terms of the housing target that we've been given.
It's, yeah, it's crazy, but that's the target that we've got
and yeah, I totally understand the point you're making
about the nature of a rural community
and people who live in a village
and potentially they might be looking at these numbers
and thinking it's gonna turn into a town
and I totally get that concern. And the point you make about infrastructure is
very well made and the fact that a new development can't or can't oblige to
fix the problems of previous developments and you know we live with
the problems of previous developments I mean particularly I'm thinking about
Morton and the infrastructure there in terms of the the wastewater and the
flooding and everything that has not you know with the growth of the town that
hasn't been fixed.
So I think in terms of where we are, we have to be mindful that
we've got a time scale.
So I think in terms of the face -to -face contact, I guess
that's something that essentially Juliette and myself
and maybe Helen might be available for, but I'm very
conscious about.
We will have formal consultation events where people can go along
and find out more as you would anticipate, but I think we've
got Matt at the back there, and he's got a plan for, in terms
of what we're doing in terms of the formal consultation and if there are
events and people want to hear from us I'm just very mindful that we've got
an awful lot of work that our officers have got to do and yeah not wanting I
suppose for them to be in a position where they're having to go go along to
lots more meetings but I definitely think you know actually we recognise the
impact of this and that's where where Helen is the director together with us as the
portfolio holder and the leader can
Hopefully assist with that in terms of with the communities and if we get invitations will do our best to come along and explain the situation
We are holding something for towns and parishes that's for sure
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:26:29
That's set up and we've got well. We will have things in large hallswe'll have exhibitions in the boards and everything.
We're beginning to set that up.
I think if we start talking individually to parish councils
or meetings within in those settlement areas where it's
indicative, maybe it's a wee bit earlier, and maybe we ought
to be thinking we need to get this, you know, get the people's
consultation done and see what the comments are.
and I'm sure those comments are going to be the same virtually over the district,
but I would also say those comments are going to be the same over the whole of the country.
Every council I've ever spoken to from any councillors are all having the same issues.
I do wonder what Keir Starmer's government said when he said we're going to do 1 .5 million.
What was he asked to prove? Is it possible? But we are being asked to prove, is it possible?
So I think it's too early to be spending lots of officer time and money, as we've just had
money talked about earlier, the budget, on setting up things quite yet. But there will
be exhibitions showing what the boards are and that every, you know, public, in areas
that the public can come and see and engage with officers there.
But I think I'd be a bit reluctant to think we're ready
to go out yet to individual parishes to talk about it.
But ward members can.
We all know this.
We know what the problem is and what's happening to us.
So I don't think it makes it any stronger that if Mike or I
or officers went out and said the same thing
that the ward member can say with just
as much strength and clarity.
Follow up and clarify that.
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:28:25
I think for me it's about putting the district council'sposition, which is we are being forced.
I mean, this is all I'm asking.
I don't think we can have officers going and asking
technical details.
And we know from previous experiences
that people get revved up when you turn up with a load of maps
and go, we're building there.
What I'm saying is the stage before that is just
a bit of soft power, if you like, in diplomacy.
Going along could be informally, might
be part of a formal meeting.
And I think from, yes, the ward members absolutely play
an important role.
Let's make sure they've got the FAQs, if you like,
and the background, nice clear briefing document.
Matt, I'm sure, will put one of those together,
and it will be very comprehensive.
But I think for me, we know what the settlements are that are,
you know, most concerned and where most of the numbers are.
So for me, it's just a bit of soft power.
You know, the authority is with you guys as the cabinet,
and I think don't underestimate how much sway that holds,
those leadership positions. So listen, I'm not saying go along to every village, but I think where
are requests for a village meeting? I think Mike has answered it, you'll try your best to try and
get along to that. I think that's great, but we certainly don't want officers coming along talking
technical detail and when they've got so much to do. Right, thank you. I think Councillor Jekinson.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:29:38
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:29:42
Thank you, Chair. So I'm just staying a moment with the theme of risk, but also adding inpotentially opportunity. As you know, I'm Ward Councillor in Moreton -in -Marsh and it's
my particular ward has got four strategic thrusts allocated to it. I'm somewhat shocked
to find and in a funny way pleased to find that Moreton -in -Marsh is not actually proportionately
getting the largest amount of growth.
But I also feel rather confused about that, I mean,
because I'm kind of pleased that that's not the case.
It's going to make life maybe a little bit easier for me,
but it's going to make life difficult for others.
The key aspect that I want to bring in this question is this.
Morton and Marsh, as you just referenced,
has a range of different problems.
And the issue with those problems is that if they are
not resolved, they could scupper the ability of the housing development in the area to
take place or to take place as quickly as you need to sustain the five -year land supply.
Some of the issues are hard for you to control, like Thames Water or us to control, and some
Some of them are expensive, like a bypass road, but they are critical to being able
to go ahead.
So my question really is, to what extent are we confident that these critical levels of
infrastructure could be delivered during the course of this, the time of this area plan,
and in line with the development needs, because the problem is that we may not be the highest proportion,
but we're a big number of houses in terms of the total you need to achieve.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:31:54
I'll start and then Matt might want to say, or Juliet might want to say something.I mean, I think clearly we've got some work going on in developing a feasibility study that was started
when the last reg 18 started in the earlier last year.
So, as and when we get that back, which we don't have it
yet in a position where it's shareable, essentially, that
the developability will be part of that, I'm sure, and Matt
might come on and say something about that.
I guess you've got to look at the deliverability and the
constraints with all of this stuff.
And the point of doing a new local plan is to get
a five -year housing land supply so that we can control
development in the district.
And if the sites that come forward aren't developable
or not without infrastructure upgrades
that are unlikely to happen, then they're not gonna be,
as you say, not gonna meet our five -year land supply.
So I don't know if Juliet or Matt have anything
to add to what I've said in reply.
Officer - 2:33:02
Just to add, when we're looking at how many houses can be delivered on these sites in our local plan period,for strategic sites in particular, the sites are 500 or more houses,
we've then add reference to other strategic sites and how they've delivered.
So there's a consultancy called Lichfield's who've done this report called Start to Finish,
where they've done case studies on numerous strategic sites and worked out
how long it's taken them to build out the rates that they build out at and yeah
they found essentially that normally it takes around from the first time from
the first planning application being validated to the first house being
delivered it's about seven years and then once that first house is built
it's not like it jumps straight to delivering 120 houses a year or whatever.
There's like a slow build up as infrastructure is built and delivered.
And then, even then, there's a limit on how many houses each site can be built,
how many homes each site will build out at a year. So when we factored that all
into like the indicative numbers in the housing structure, just to make sure
that we're not sort of overestimating on when sites will be delivered and on how
many homes will be delivered on them. So they do have that built into it already.
And yeah as Katie even says, on the feasibility stage that's ongoing at the
moment and you know we are looking at what infrastructure is required to
deliver sites. We're also, a key piece of evidence will be our infrastructure
delivery plan and working out what's required, how much it will cost and when
it's going to be delivered. So yeah that all feeds into it. It might be that some
sites that are currently in the running, it turns out they're actually just not
deliverable. But yeah that's not for this stage essentially, that's like the
next stage. This stage is just looking at the high -level options still. So is it, is
allocations in principal settlements and non -principal settlements.
And as a strategy, it might be that different strategic sites come in and some drop away,
but as a strategy, that's what we're looking at at this stage.
Thank you very much, both of you.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:35:32
So we already have a suggestion to come back to a recommendation that cabinet should be lobbying government further.I suggest that it would be appropriate to build into that
a statement to the effect that part of the problem that we have
with Thames Water is a failure by government institutions
to bring due governance over Thames Water during the time
that they were operating and that therefore we are left
with a vulnerability there.
And to also point out that the ability to do the growth
depends on money that will need to come from central government for things like a bypass,
and that we make it really clear that this is a critical need for the development that
we sought out, the transport, the car, through Morton and Duke or Stone. And is there any
reason why that shouldn't be something that we recommend as well?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:36:41
Who would like to answer that? I think Councillor Evami.Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:36:49
Is that a question for us as presenters of this? I think it was a recommendation. It'syou have to make the decision as an O &S committee on that. I don't think there's anything for
us to add really, is there, to that? It would be up to us to decide to do it, but I'm inviting
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:37:02
I'm inviting you to say, oh, no, it would be a really bad ideato do that if you've got a good reason, otherwise I'm going to
propose it at the appropriate time.
Maybe I'll respond then.
Happy for you to recommend that we do more that we're already
intending to do.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:37:15
That's a matter for you.But I think it just highlights the importance of continuing
to lobby, which is what we're going to do.
I'm looking over in terms of thinking about the
communications, I think we need to be quite clear that we've got a really key
message. As a marketeer, Angus, you will understand that, you know, the key
message that you're trying to put across the proposition essentially is, yeah,
change our numbers because the numbers are just unrealistic and there are other
things, as you alluded to, that actually if you fix these other things then we
could actually deliver some of the housing that you want us to do. But
that's a comms challenge which we can take away and have a think about that.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:38:05
Before I let Councillor Turner I'm going to have my first question and I'mobviously going to be talking up for the villagers in my ward particularly
Woolsey and Mickleton. The first part of the question would be that the moment
whether your current non -principal settlements or village clusters would any
of them such as those places be redexisted. In fact, Meckleton is
already a principal settlement but Meckleton has one shop, it has one primary
school, it has a very poor bus service, it has no employment prospects within the
village itself and to have the amount of housing going on how it was referred to
by the officer that you know that was one of the requirements to look at when
I just don't see how those issues can be resolved.
And particularly, and Mickleton has a problem,
it's on the Warwickshire border.
We have a huge amount of other development
the other side of the border,
but most of the public transport
would be provided by Warwickshire,
and that doesn't work terribly well.
It doesn't also come down through Gloucestershire very well.
The concern of these villages,
and Willasee, we've referred to the sewage, they have a particularly severe
sewage issues too. But would they, do the way you view these settlements or would
you, how do you evaluate them on when they really don't have, I mean Willasee
doesn't even have a shop, it has a very small primary school, it has an
industrial site but it's not that big. You know how are we going to, for these
new residents coming in, provide them with these essential services. Thank you.
Officer - 2:39:56
So the proposed settlement hierarchy, so you notice there's some changes likeWilloughby is becoming, well proposed to become a non -principal settlement and
Siddington is proposed to be a principal settlement and that is based on a survey,
well a study that she's been doing in 2025 of the current level of services
and I understand in Meckleton it's lost its post office and some of the
services but based on the current level of services Meckleton is still coming
out as being a principal settlement. So the way this and the development strategy
will be in the final local plan is going is would reflect the level of services
and facilities that would be in a settlement based on the planned level of
the growth. So that may include for example if there's a strategic site
which in you know could include like the Steddings as a new neighbourhood centre,
allotment, school, all these different and other things that go into a
strategic site and then then yeah it would be recategorised on that basis and
And likewise with the non -principal settlements,
if there's a level of development there
that adds a sharp or something,
it would be the final planned level of growth
in that settlement.
So yeah, but as things currently stand,
that is based on the settlement role and function study,
which will be published alongside the consultation
when it starts on the 5th of November.
I appreciate the difficulties in this,
but it is a significant problem in these areas.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:41:39
I think Councillor Turner had another question.I will go then.
Councillor Clare Turner - 2:41:52
So we've heard a fair bit of comments about the frustrationand sort of helplessness we feel around these numbers
that are being imposed upon us in terms of the targets.
One constructive thing we can do as ward councillors
is support our communities and our parish councils and town councils to get the best
possible feedback into their consultation. I wonder if you could make a comment or give
us advice on how we reassure those residents and parish and town councils that it's worthwhile
responding to the consultation and that their feedback will be listened to. How will that
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:42:36
be used? Thank you Claire. I mean absolutely it's worthwhile and we want to hear.There might not be things, there might be things in there which you know I think
the point of this Reg 18 and Juliet, she's been involved in more of this than
I have historically as well, is that people tell us their thoughts and their
views and particularly, you know, what they see in terms of the strategies that we're
suggesting as Matt has told us.
As in any consultation, we can't promise that we can do everything that people ask and there'll
be conflicting things, no doubt, that people ask.
And all we can do is take that on board and look at that in light of the situation we'll
be going into next year as Matt and the team firm up the plans that they want to
put in in terms of the sites that may be suitable for development and obviously
there's work that they will do. I think in terms of what we can say to you as us
as ward members because all 34 of us are going through this together is yet
engage with your local communities.
I'm sure you're doing that.
Your town of Harish Councils and local residents.
Encourage them to take part in the consultation.
Obviously there's a process which Juliet or Matt
can explain about how we then go forward on that.
But it's absolutely critical that the process is
we are doing this so that we can inform
the next stage of decision making.
and therefore making your voice heard is really important.
If I can come in there as well.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:44:24
There will be a website to go to.We'll be issuing that.
What all members have had, if you didn't get to,
I'm pretty sure you were on the thing on Tuesday,
but those slides have gone out to all members.
Matt Abbott sent it out.
Was it Tuesday or Wednesday?
But they went out with frequently asked questions.
But I think the key thing is what we need from residents is not just shouting at us,
no, no, no.
We've got to have stuff that will work as evidence.
We have to show evidence.
And that is the key criteria.
And I'm fairly sure on the FAQs there was a bit about evidence.
If there wasn't, we can add it.
We can put that on.
We've also got the counsellor portal.
And I'm sure that's on there as well.
So keep looking at that because we're updating it.
It's really important that if people can do it online
in the correct way, that's going to get through much easier.
I mean, there are people that are going to write us letters,
which is a really slow process.
But if they can do it online, that's what we want them to do.
But everything will count so long as it fits
the material considerations, because otherwise we
can't take I don't want this as evidence we all know that nobody wants it
actually we wouldn't have to run a consultation to know that so it's
important that we get what is best message out there and we'll we'll keep
updating councillors with on the FAQs
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:46:05
Officer - 2:46:06
and just to add to that as well I mean it only takes one person to raise onepoint and it's you know it could be a dynamite point that you know we take
away and that actually that's something we really needed to know and I always
think back to when we did the last local plan consultation we we didn't know
about an oil pipeline going across the steadings when we assessed it and
someone came into one of our consultation events and said you do
know there's an oil pipeline going across that site and it was like well no we
didn't it's only by your local knowledge that we you know we try to cover all
basis, but it's only people's local knowledge that they can feed into the process and raise
those thing points.
And yeah, we can take that away and act on it.
And in our last local plan consultation, we were looking at different policies and the
specific wording of text to sort of how we can deliver more affordable housing.
And people sort of either suggested, oh, you might want to reword that way, or maybe look
at this as a line of inquiry.
And we took that away and it's like, oh, that's a really good idea.
So yeah, we do listen to people's feedback and take it. It's not just ignored.
Thank you. Councillor Vann.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:47:18
Councillor Michael Vann - 2:47:22
Yes, left -hand column, Fairford has another 470 dwellings.Right -hand column, another 780. Had the two together, 1250.
It's quite horrific as a fact.
There's one road that goes through Fairford.
It's also a fact that when a combine harvester
is going along that road,
it goes at something less than two miles an hour,
which is half the speed that a steam driven one
went 100 years ago.
So, Thames Water have tentative plans to deal with the present in the future.
They have no plan for any new works.
They are outside the planning process.
They are a third party that we do not have control over.
I think the issue that I've raised of the combine harvester is a nice graphic way of
the problems faced by an agricultural community in the 21st century.
Is there a question?
The question is, we have to fight it on a scale which is through the entire district.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:49:03
Thank you Michael for demonstrating I think the nonsense of some of the numbers.and you referred to your ward, I haven't referred to the settlements in my ward
this evening but you know the numbers are similarly staggering in terms of
change to two of the settlements in my ward. We can but we live in a democracy
and we have a government that seems very keen to go ahead with this. They've got a
figure of one and a half million that they is a mantra. I mean I think it was
even the new Secretary of State who was even pictured or talking about build
baby build. Well I think what we need to do is we need to build houses that
people want and need to live in and the scale that we've been given is, a
couple of you have said bonkers it's not a word I normally use but you know it is
staggering and it is what our officers are having to grapple with when you
consider you know how many dwellings we have in our district at the minute
probably around about 40 ,000 and yet we're being asked to deliver another
18 ,000 on top of that in an area which is you know beautiful in 80 % of it's so
beautiful that you know we can't build hardly anything in it so it is
I replied to an earlier question.
I think we have, essentially we've got a twin track,
but we're saying to the government,
look, this is actually, we can now show you,
this is the impact.
And let's be honest, this total up to 14 ,660.
So it's 4 ,000 less than the total.
And the fact that we haven't delivered the total
might mean we'd have to have 20 % more than the total.
So, you know, despite the fact that, you know,
we have gone out there and our officers have gone out there
and found where could we put,
technically could we put new housing. It isn't enough to satisfy the government's
demands in terms of the numbers. So you know obviously there's going to be a
further call for sites and there may other sites may come forward some of
these may drop away but you're right this is incongruous. We have to work on
the basis that we as an authority want to decide where the development is. What
What we don't want is the piecemeal development again.
We want proper plan development.
And I think as Matt, as Britain has said, plan development takes a long time to happen.
You know, we've seen actually the steadings development has been much lower than we anticipated,
except we had a global pandemic in there.
But it's still, even despite that, it's still progressed very slowly.
But that's infinitely preferable to, you know, the two or 300 houses here or there with little
on infrastructure or community benefits that many of our towns
have seen in the 10 years ago, which was stopped when the new
plan came in in 2018.
So we do need to have a local plan.
I would hope that the government might realise that the number
needs to be a lot lower that we could work with than 18 ,000 or
1 ,000 a year.
We need a number that's sensible.
But for now, we have to continue to plan with this and hope that
they might see sense and change their mind.
And we'll continue to lobby on that ground as well as on our
officers doing the work to get us a local plan
that we can adopt.
Sorry.
Just filling a small gap.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:52:41
The other thing is because we haven't got the full 18 ,000,we've got the duty to cooperate with other areas.
So we have to go out, we have to show that we've gone out to
other areas around us to ask if they can take some of those numbers. But a lot of
this is making evidence to show that we can't feasibly do this. So that will
that will add strength to maybe reducing our numbers. I mean a lot of it is
because we've also have such very expensive housing that it's caused us
these numbers as well. So we're kind of you know we live in a beautiful place
where a lot of people want to have big beautiful houses but it hasn't helped us
in our this number of target. Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:53:30
Councillor Spivey. Thank you. I think we're all really you know agreeing with eachCouncillor Lisa Spivey - 2:53:33
other about where we're at and just kind of bringing it back to that strategicthing I think you know I think we need to make sure that we do go out to this
consultation and that you know thank you Matt for that input on how to really make
that we can help our communities to respond to it in a meaningful way and bring something for it.
And I think a lot of others have said it, and I look at the places where they're planned in my
ward. Yeah, the roads, they're just tracks in Anthony Cruises. You can't hardly get one
vehicle down it, never mind two. It's called Bat Lane and Pig Lane for a reason, because those were
places that weren't meant for vehicles.
So I do, and I think it would be good to know,
my point is actually around infrastructure.
I think I also want to put on the record that I think actually,
in a lot of the communities and even the ones in my ward
which are hugely affected,
actually there is an appetite for building homes.
It's not nimbyism that's going on here.
I think, you know, I know even in Driffield that they've said,
you know, there's a little bit of, you know, the smaller villages,
a few houses on the edge of the village.
actually that's really good to keep the communities alive and thriving that
might be family members etc but you know on the skill that we're looking at it's
just yeah bonkers crazy crackers whatever you want to say. When, my
question sorry is around an infrastructure, when in this process
because I accept that now we're looking at the strategic way of doing this and
you've given us several options in the consultation document, when do we get
into infrastructure.
And I could go on about that until it's far too late to chair
the right to connect, Thames Water.
Bridget's house in Fairford will flood with sewage again
this year, despite the fact that they're supposed to have
upgraded that for years.
We know there are existing problems.
We know those people, we know those residents.
We go around and comfort them and trying to do something
and say that we're going to help them and support them and we can't do anything.
So when is the point where we get into infrastructure, into those roads, into sewage, into all of
that and we can really make this point.
So, partly now.
Officer - 2:55:54
So in this consultation, actually this is a risk to the delivery of sites.So yeah, it's useful to hear back any infrastructure use at this point.
Really, when we do the assessment of what infrastructure is required, that's when we have an understanding of what sites we've got.
So we'll have done the school for sites.
We need to just assess those as quickly as possible, and then we send that off to our consultant who assesses what infrastructure is required to deliver those sites.
And essentially that's when we get that back and we feed that into the next stage of the
local plan consultation.
And yeah, that's essentially part of the local plan, then we include that within the policy.
But there's also just ongoing dialogue with infrastructure providers in between and about,
you know, temp tort is a massive risk to this whole thing.
So yeah, we need to sort of continue to just have those conversations about what's upcoming,
that is part of this consultation as well.
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 2:57:05
So can I just clarify then, so for the likes of Driffield, where again it's a single trackroad with some passing places, it's called Tank Lane, that is not suitable for 840 homes
to be put there, I mean there's just really not the road.
So at this point do we say, do people say, this is a ridiculous place for 840 houses,
is because you will literally need to build an entire new road and road structure in order
to be able to access it because people will inevitably use cars to come in and out of
there. So this is the point where we make those points.
Yes, in this consultation people would encourage that.
Officer - 2:57:40
Great, thank you.Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:57:46
Great, thank you. Well, I've got another question. It's very much on that same line and it'sit's Angus's patch rather mind Morton in Marsh, but Morton in Marsh is vital to our
northern Cotswolds and we've obviously had huge traffic problems. In fact David
Stanley was recounting his own problems and getting through there recently. I
actually see that this table to page 151 it talks about north south and west of
Morton I think it probably means east because I didn't think that the we were
plan to go that far west.
But what I am also aware of is there is this potential bypass.
I know it's just potential at this stage.
What I'm concerned about is that you can allow or give
permission for some planning, which then absolutely prevents
the bypass potentially, because it might come ahead of it,
being rooted in the way that one ideally would like to see it.
And how do you enable that, the expectation of some bigger
infrastructure which is going to be needed in due course but there might be
other planning applications granted before that is.
Officer - 2:59:01
Yeah so it's something that we're really keen to prevent from happening becausethere's a longer term opportunity to be had potentially and we don't want it to
be scuppered for whatever word by development taking place ahead of it.
So yeah, essentially we're in a situation where we don't have a five -year housing and supply
and at the moment and each planning application has to be determined on a case -by -case basis.
One of the things the Morton Feasibility Study, we've asked them to do is to identify strategically important sites
which could be potentially needed for that link road.
So, yeah, it's a difficult one though because whilst we can say that, ultimately, you know, the council can refuse an application and then it can go to an inspector.
And it's in a difficult situation. We've got to demonstrate why that site is needed and it's not, it should be granted for housing.
So, but yeah, it's a risk.
I really appreciate the honesty and the sort of directness in that because it is clearly
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:00:12
a risk that you would like to be able to ensure that whatever facilities are needed goingforward or infrastructure that there was going to be the allocation, the space or the requirements
for it because anyway there we are but thank you and I'm sure Councillor Jenkinson also
Does anybody have any further questions? If not, then we will put together the recommendation.
You would have another question or... anyway, you can certainly consider another question.
I appreciate it.
But also that we do want to come up with a recommendation before everybody sort of is getting out their slippers and hot cocoa.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:01:01
Okay. Thank you, Chair. Appreciate that. I would like to turn to a different matter,which is to do with the manner of conducting the consultation and the process of getting
response. It seems to me that what we're trying to say to residents is support our protest,
don't delay our process.
And with that in mind, there are some issues that you will
recollect very well, Matt, when you were up in Morton in the
last Regulation 18, I think as probably one of those days that
you were not one of your most pleasurable in terms of the
situation that you met, because it was very difficult.
And it is when people get reasonably irate,
and sometimes irate for reasonable reasons,
it can get difficult.
So we need to do everything we can to help people.
So some of the issues here are to do with how we organise
the information to enable residents, including activists,
to really understand the issue.
Because it was clear last time around that a lot
of people just did not comprehend what was going on.
And some of that, I think, was down to the way that
information was organised by us and communicated.
For example, you have three different scenarios of
analysis, three different aspects of analysis that need
to go into a scenario.
And if those three different sets of analysis are presented
in different places, and there's further subsets that
are elsewhere. You know, sites of special scientific interest, that's over there.
Archeological, that's over there. Flood, that's over there. If you've got to connect
all of those, and if on top of that there's a whole lot of technical terms like Regulation
18 and broad zone and principal settlement and sustainability and service centre to try
understand and then it's not clear. So my concern, not having seen the actual
consultation material, is the extent to which we are, and it goes back to the FAQs
and so on that Councillor Evermy was mentioning, are we really making sure
that we are communicating this so that a reasonably minded person can understand
what the issues are, what they're being asked, can collect it together at a principle settlement
level.
I mean, there are things like broads.
I don't know what a broad zone is from this document, so no doubt I've missed it somewhere
along the line, so it would be interesting to know.
So there's a bunch of technical terms that need to be understood, and there's a bunch
of constraints that need to be understood, and there's a bunch of logic that goes to
this is where it's going to be developed and not there,
and people need to understand that,
including the government thing.
And putting it down in such a way that it meets technical
regulation standards without providing it in such a way that
it's communicating is a problem.
So I'm hoping that something different is going to happen
from the last regulation AT.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:04:41
Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:04:45
Thank you. Councillor Crambe. Yeah thanks Angus. Yeah totally get that. As a lay personin planning I have similar questions what is a zone and all that sort of stuff. So absolutely
we're very mindful that the communication that we put out and the consultation needs
to be understandable as you say to a normal person in the street who lives in
somewhere in our district. So Matt is the head of comms. He sat there all the way
till quarter past seven so I'm maybe now he might be worth you saying something
or you're happy for me to say something but I think yeah that he and his team
are very very mindful of the challenge that you have just articulated and we
can learn from previous iterations, the one you
described when he wasn't here, and really make sure
that how we're communicating about this is in language
that people can understand.
If there are, as you say, if there are technical terms
we do need to use, then we need to explain them.
And, yeah, that's the task that he has been set as
that head of comms, and he's working very closely
with the planning team and with Juliette and myself
to make sure that we do the absolute best job we can on that. So I don't know if Matt
wants to say anything to add to what I've said. Well actually I was quite
Officer - 3:06:14
happy just sitting here quietly just taking a little bit. Yeah I think CouncillorJenkinson my role is to translate lots of the technical language. I'm conscious
that the documents that you are reviewing are in draught and are to serve
both technical purposes. We have got many plans over the course of the next six or
seven weeks to issue communication, engage with residents in
ways that are accessible to them and that are in clear, plain, accessible
English. So to give you an example, one of the things that we're planning to do is
ensure that every single household in the district receives a newsletter from
which is angled around the local plan with a really clear call to action on how
they can get involved, why it matters, the challenges, the context, all of that stuff
mapped out in plain simple English. So yes, absolutely, we're across that. The
only thing I think I'd add at this stage is that I think there is evidence, some
anecdotal, some driven by data, that demonstrates the message, particularly
the message that's been articulated by members this
evening is starting to resonate with members of the public.
We're seeing some of the language that we're using,
some of the challenge that we're setting out played back
to us in correspondence that we're receiving from pressure
groups, from residents on social media.
So there is an acknowledgement, a growing acknowledgement,
I think, of the challenge that we're facing and the reason
for that and the context for that.
So I think the communication so far is working.
We know that there's a lot more to do.
And as we gear up to the start of the consultation
on the 5th of November,
there'll be a lot more for us to do.
I think the only other thing I'd flag
for members this evening is on Wednesday,
we did issue some Q &As.
That's a live document for members to refer to.
So when you are being approached by residents,
by members of your town and parish councils there is a document there which
is evolving for you to refer to and the communications team is very happy to
field questions that we can take back to the very busy planning team and that
will support you with interactions that you have while we ready the materials
that are clear and plain and easily accessible.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:08:50
Well thank you for that. I've also got a note that David Cunningham would like, CouncillorCunningham.
Councillor David Cunningham - 3:08:55
Thank you Madam Chair. This is more of an observation really than anything else. We'retalking about all the great communication we're going to do and how we're going to engage
with everybody but I remember over a year ago we said we'd set up a molten working group
that would address some very specific questions that they had. I'm not aware of that having
happened as yet so I don't think that's the best advert for us as a council in
terms of following up on the things that we say we'll do in terms of giving
people their voice. It's just an observation but I think it is quite
important that if we say we're going to do these things we better do them.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:09:36
Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:09:44
It may be then I'll answer. I mean I think, take your point, we had initial meetingfor the Morton Working Group with Councillors Cawre and Jenkinson. We are
looking and I have a date in my calendar and hopefully communicated very soon to
have a meeting of the wider group before this consultation starts.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:10:07
Well thank you for that confirmation. Are we, I think at the time it's cracking on.Oh, there's another name going back in, and it's Councillor Jenkinson.
Councillor Jenkinson, before...
There's nobody else putting up there.
No, we have run through this for some time, and whilst I'm sure it's a good question,
how long and how many more questions might you have?
Because we have got offices and things here and everything else.
we can't keep people too late.
So please, if you have a quick question, which we think,
and then we want to discuss the potential recommendation.
So thank you.
Councillor Jenksen.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:10:53
I'm not trying to extend this unnecessarily.But I'm conscious that there are questions
that I get asked, which I'll need to answer,
and questions that might matter to us.
And that's why I'm asking them.
and I've put a lot of work into trying to understand the situation.
So we have a very big issue and we're only slightly over the normal three hours.
But I do realise that we need to put in recommendations, so I'll try and keep it short.
There's a situation where we talked about, there's a discussion about building a large settlement
in some kind of new site.
There's a statement that says there's nowhere to build 10 ,000 house settlement, as I understand it.
So, two... couple of questions around this.
One is, are we interested in building a new large settlement somewhere
if the land was available and it was a good location?
Related question, the county spatial planning team identified a space
between Kemble Railway and Cirencester with a proposal
to build mass transportation connecting the railway to Cirencester, which it doesn't currently
have, and which would make a big difference in that space.
It appears to have been dismissed without further consideration, as far as I can see.
So my question really is, are we still interested in building something fresh and new over the
course of this period?
Maybe it's five thousand not ten thousand. Maybe it's four thousand and if so is the problem a
suitable land availability or is it just that this is considered to be
the kind of development that just doesn't fit the timeline that we would need and
I'm really asking because I have been asked and I will be asked this question and I think it's a reasonable one to ask
Thank you.
Officer - 3:13:27
Yeah, we are open to all site submissions and new settlements, strategic sites, and that's part of the preferred development strategy option that we're proposing.There's actually already one proposed new settlement in there of the land near Driffield.
It's 840 houses that would be delivered in the local plan period.
I suppose just one slight caveat to it all is that whilst we're interested in
looking at what can be delivered in this local plan period and beyond
the end of the local plan period, there is a limit to how many houses these
sites can deliver in our local plan period. So if it's a 5 ,000 house
settlement, we're interested in it but we wouldn't expect 5 ,000 houses to be
contributing towards our overall figure.
It's not the silver bullet that's gonna fix our issue,
but that's not to say that it's off the table
and it's not to say that we're not prepared
to look long term as well on these things.
On the Kemble -Sirencester link,
yeah, so the steadings, as there's an extension
to the steadings which has been submitted,
so 400 of which would be delivered in our local plan period.
And yet it hasn't been dismissed off the table.
We've, I think, actually have to pay for some of the first business case,
well, the outline business case for it.
And I know they're looking to do a, I think it's a further outline business case.
But yeah, the problem we've got at the moment is, well,
obviously the Stedlings has already got planning commission.
There is the RAU, Royal Actors University, which is in the process of planning applications
being made.
That is a long part of the route that it would go.
So we are keeping an eye on that.
But we have only got so much influence as well on it, so it has got to be deliverable.
We have also done a public transport study between Syrins, Esther, Kemble and Tetbury,
which did consider that as well.
I know it didn't stack up particularly well in terms of, I think it was costing about
£50 million at the time, and what you could deliver for £50 million with bus provision,
it didn't seem to stack up particularly well about it.
It hasn't been dismissed.
I think a lot of people really support that scheme.
It's just the deliverability of it really that's difficult.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Right, thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:16:12
Angus, did you have anything further you wanted to add before?Yes, he is.
No, he's crossing it out.
But Angus, I'm sure that Matt and others would be very happy because I know that your area
is particularly, not only the area, and others have also had their areas being very impacted.
There's a nasty group of properties that have, there's a really, when you look at the growth
across it's a pretty tragic look.
So I'm sure that that'd be able to help you because it is a moving field so that things
will emerge.
What I have got here, and I think we will, I think Andrea can read it out because I've
got her last, so we can get my glasses down, is a recommendation which I hope that everyone,
All the members here can agree.
Andrew Brown, Officer - 3:17:04
Based on what's been said, the recommendation we're proposing is that the Council continuesto lobby government for a significantly lower housing target for the Cotswold district given
a, 80 % of the district is within the Cotswold National Landscape Area, b, the infrastructure
challenges across the district, we've identified sewage capacity, small rural roads, lack of
transport, et cetera, c, lack of access to employment and facilities, and d, the reality
of what scale of development and sporting infrastructure will be deliverable in the
remaining developable parts of the district.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:17:45
Thank you, Andrew, for that. Does anybody have any comments on that, anything they wouldlike to add, change, alter, and if some of the overall people are happy, whether we can
a proposer and seconder for that.
Thank you, Andrew.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:18:01
Can you just confirm, do you, is there anything in that that says if you want us to do it,you need to support that infrastructure challenge?
So yes, that was mentioned, wasn't it?
Andrew Brown, Officer - 3:18:19
so we could add something like the need for external supportand funding to address some of these challenges.
Depending on the line of support.
Angus has a second recommendation.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:18:39
Do you want to deal with that one first?Okay, so we'll deal with this one first.
Sorry, I'm now pressing the wrong button.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:18:48
Um, yes, so could I have for this, which is just having the, um, the, the, the, the, theaddendum that the government will, we will need government support in order to deliver
the infrastructure required for this housing. We don't have it obviously within our, the
district or within the Cotswold District Council. Are you happy with this? Who would like to
propose it? Who would like to second it?
I propose.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:19:17
So Angus, would you like to share with us your...Do you want to vote on that first?
Oh, sorry.
Yes, it's getting late, isn't it?
Right.
We've got a proposal, shall we vote on that?
Are you happy with that?
Are you happy?
Good, thank you.
I'd like to see your hand up, otherwise it's going to knock you.
Okay, so now, sorry, Angus, over to you.
Thank you again, Chair.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:19:40
I'm not trying to, excuse me, Matt, I'm not trying to write your copy, but in effect,I think that we should back that up by an internal message along the lines of, support
our protest, don't delay our process.
And to get that notion across, because I certainly know that there are activist groups that don't
trust CDC and will do everything they can to try and block it, at least that's the historic
situation and to get across the idea that that's not the best thing to do.
Use your skills in a different direction would be very helpful.
So the recommendation is, however you want to draught it, Andrew, is that we also emphasise
this particular picture that we understand this is an issue.
Please support that position.
send your grievances to the government, not to us.
Help us to do the best we can with a difficult situation.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:20:54
I said I'm not trying to write your copy, but it's the principle of support our protest, don't delay our process.Send your grievances to the government.
Help us to do a good job.
I think, however you want to put it.
It's reaffirming, isn't it, our position that the government
Councillor Joe Harris - 3:21:16
have landed us with this, you know, thing.And we want to be absolutely robust in saying that.
At the same time, we're saying engage with the process
because whatever happens, that's useful for us.
Regardless of whether any development happens,
you know, helps us get your views.
So reaffirming that the government, you know,
are wrong on this, are pushing back and encouraging people
to engage in the process, yeah?
Is that how I understood that?
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:21:48
Just making sure that they understand that blaming usis not useful in this situation.
Can we one -touche?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:21:59
I think Angus is, this is a recommendation to Cabinet and it's not actually a recommendationto our residents.
What you could recommend to Cabinet is...
No one really cares.
Councillor David Cunningham - 3:22:15
At the same time as we are continuing to lobby government, that we continue with the processthat we're also doing in making sure we have the local plan.
That's what we can press to Cabinet.
We can't press Cabinet to do something the government will have to do ultimately.
But we can press Cabinet to say, keep under pressure about getting the local plan done
while you're still lobbying government to reduce the numbers.
Is that right?
I think that's covered by the one we've already just approved.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:22:43
What I'm saying is that it's important that our communication includes a focus on gettingacross the idea that we already recognise there's a problem with this development, with
these plans. We know that and we are protesting to the government. So join us in that process.
But we still have to do the best we can, help us to do that and that's the engagement that
you're talking about.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:23:11
I'll respond and say we've heard that, Matt's heard that as our head of comms. Essentially,we have to be we mustn't under and undermine our own consultation because
we want people to engage but at the same time yeah we absolutely want to tell
them that you know the number that we've been given is totally unrealistic but
that's the number we've got to work with so I think we're doing that and
essentially that's what you're asking us to do in the first resolution was to to
not be the government if you are if you want to tell us to do at what we should
be doing. I'm happy with that as well, but that is what we're going to be doing.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:23:49
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:23:52
Basically, I remember being told by, I think, of James Brain that it took three months toprocess paperwork that came through from Moreton in Marsh, and that kind of thing would slow
down our process. That's what I'm concerned about.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:24:09
I think you've got a very good point there, but I do think, the thing which Matt wouldbe agreeing, that we're really trying to, and I know Councillor Layton also touched
on it, that we're going to encourage everybody to make their things online, not to even send
emails or letters or whatever, because they've all got to be transcribed and put onto the
system. If we can make, their point's going to be more strongly made if they actually
do it through the online portal.
And that's what we really must encourage.
Because otherwise, as you say, it's too much work
and probably not a very effective use of time.
Oh, there we are.
That's it.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:24:51
So thank you very much, everybody.Good night.
And thank you for everything.
And look, we all got to work jolly hard
to get this through and communicate as much as possible
with the residents.
Thank you.
- Minutes , 01/09/2025 Overview and Scrutiny Committee, opens in new tab
- CDC O S September Actions, opens in new tab
- O&S 2025 10 13 TM response, opens in new tab
- Cabinet response to Scrutiny recommendation on displaying artefacts in Trinity Road, opens in new tab
- OS Bromford Member Questions, opens in new tab
- CDC OS Bromford Member Questions and Answers by theme, opens in new tab
- 2026-27 Budget Strategy and MTFS Update Report v3 FINAL 2025 10 07, opens in new tab
- Annex A - Exceptional Financial Support FINAL, opens in new tab
- Annex B - Fair Funding 2.0 Consultation FINAL, opens in new tab
- Annex C - Fair Funding 2.0 indicative impact FINAL, opens in new tab
- Annex D - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026-27 UPDATE October 2025 FINAL, opens in new tab
- Annex E - Capital Programme 2026-27 to 2029-30 FINAL, opens in new tab
- Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan October 2025, opens in new tab
- Printed plan Forward Plan October 2025- May 2026 Cabinet, opens in new tab
- GESSC Report 25.9.19 for O&S 25.10 (Cllr Jenkinson), opens in new tab
- Cabinet Report Local Plan Review Preferred Options and LDS, opens in new tab
- Annex A Cotswold District Council Local Plan Review Regulation 18 Consultation Preferred Options, opens in new tab
- Annex B Cotswold District Local Development Scheme (October 2025), opens in new tab