Cabinet - Thursday 4 June 2026, 6:00pm - Vote_events Tab - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Cabinet
Thursday, 4th June 2026 at 6:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  4. Jane Portman, CEO
  5. Councillor Mike Evemy
  6. 03. To Approve the Minutes of Cabinet held 16 April 2026
    Status: In progress
  7. Councillor Mike Evemy
  8. 03. To Approve the Minutes of Cabinet held 16 April 2026
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Councillor Juliet Layton
  4. Officer
  5. Councillor Mike Evemy
  6. Officer
  7. Councillor Juliet Layton
  8. Officer
  9. Councillor Mike Evemy
  10. Officer
  11. Councillor Mike Evemy
  12. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  13. Councillor Mike Evemy
  14. Councillor Paul Evans
  15. Councillor Mike Evemy
  16. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  17. Councillor Mike Evemy
  18. 09. Waste and Environment Service Design Options - Recommendations 1-6
    Status: In progress
  19. Councillor Mike Evemy
  20. 09. Waste and Environment Service Design Options - Recommendations 1-6
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Councillor Paul Evans
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Councillor Mike Evemy
  6. Councillor Paul Evans
  7. Councillor Mike Evemy
  8. 10. Asset Management Corinium Museum Roof Repair - Recommendations 1-2
    Status: In progress
  9. 10. Asset Management Corinium Museum Roof Repair - Recommendations 1-2
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. Jane Portman, CEO
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Councillor Mike Evemy
  6. Councillor Mike McKeown
  7. Councillor Mike Evemy
  8. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  9. Councillor Mike Evemy
  10. 11. LGR Structural Changes Order - Recommendations 1-2 (as amended)
    Status: In progress
  11. Councillor Mike Evemy
  12. 11. LGR Structural Changes Order - Recommendations 1-2 (as amended)
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  2. Councillor Mike Evemy
  3. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  6. Councillor Mike Evemy
  7. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  8. Councillor Mike Evemy
  9. 12. Asset Management Out of District Investment Properties - Recommendations 1-2
    Status: In progress
  10. 12. Asset Management Out of District Investment Properties - Recommendations 1-2
    Status: Ended
  11. Webcast Finished

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:00:00
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:00:00
Cotswell District Council cabinet. I'm Mike have made the leader of the council. The first

1 Apologies

item on the agenda is apologies. We have apologies from Councillor Dale who's not able to be
here in person, but we are endeavouring to see whether he's able to join us virtually.
Under current legislation, he can contribute to the meeting, but he is unable to vote if
you're not present in the room with the seven of us. There are plans to change that, but
it's not been changed yet so we're hoping that he will be able to join us

2 Declarations of Interest

shortly. Second item on the agenda is declarations of interest. Do we have any
members that has a declaration of interest they wish to make? No I can't
see any. That's good. So the third item is the minutes. They're on pages 7 to 24 of

3 Minutes

the agenda. Do we have any corrections or observations on the minutes from our
last meeting. Andrea? I just want to compliment whoever wrote the minutes
because they're very comprehensive and it will be a good record for the future
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:01:03
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:01:08
which I really like to see so thank you very much. Don't always get that. Thank
you Andrea. No I'm certainly compliments to our team. They are very good.
Getting the minutes really really good so that's great.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:01:24
Katter Coleman. I really should have raised this before time. Page 10 under
Tripping Camden neighbourhood plan, well the title seems to involve the London
Camden rather than the Gloucester Camden. So just looking at the agenda, I'm looking at
page 10 of the agenda or are you looking at page 10 of the minutes? I can't see.
They are page 10 within the agenda.
Can we go through that?
We will get that corrected.
Apologies to the people in Chipping Camden that we misspelt the second half of your
settlement name.
Chief Executive Jane.
Jane Portman, CEO - 0:02:13
Could I record my apologies for that meeting?
I wasn't able to attend on that occasion.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:02:22
So with the addition of the apologies of the Chief Executive
and the correction of the spelling Camden in Chipping Camden,
are we happy to approve the minutes?
Going to see somebody to move the minutes.
That's corrected.
Juliet and the seconder.
Andrea, thank you.
Can we go to the vote, please?
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:02:57
We have six votes in favour and one abstention.
and the one abstention is Councillor Paul Evans, which I realise it makes very
remiss of me not to mention that it's his first meeting of the cabinet and
welcome to Paul for your first meeting. Right, we will now move on to item 4,

4 Leader's Announcements

his leaders announcements and other than the announcement I've just made
welcoming Paul to his first cabinet meeting, I don't have any others so we
will move on to gender item five public questions. I do not see any members of the

5 Public Questions

public in the room and then gender item six is member questions and we haven't

6 Member Questions

7 Schedule of Decisions taken by the Leader of the Council and/or Individual Cabinet Members

had any submitted so we'll move on. Agenda item seven is decisions taken by
the leader or individual cabinet members. I don't believe we have any of those either
to consider tonight. So then agenda item eight is issues arising from overview
and scrutiny and or audit and governance. There was a meeting of the overview and
scrutiny committee on Monday which Councillor Pellegram and I attended and
there's some recommendations that have come through from the overview and
scrutiny committee. What I'd like to do on that is deal with them as we get to
the individual agenda items and explain the response of cabinet to the points
made by overview and scrutiny. So for the ones on the waste item which we're about
to consider I'm going to ask Councillor Pellegram just to comment and we have a
formal document which I think we'll probably publish so that people can see
the formal response but I'll ask Councillor Pellegram to pick that up in
responses and similarly I will pick up the responses on the item number 11 the
structural changes order which was had comments and questions from the sorry
recommendations from the OV and scrutiny committee and I'll ask Councillor Coleman
to pick up the recommendation from the OV and scrutiny committee on agenda item
12 when we get to that. Okay so we'll move on now to agenda item 9 which is

8 Issue(s) Arising from Overview and Scrutiny and/or Audit and Governance

9 Waste and Environment - Service Design Options

the waste and environment service design options. I'm going to hand over to Councillor
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:05:31
Andrea Pellegrāme to introduce this one. Thank you chair. So this has already
attracted some press interest which is very interesting. Something, it's a
and another media outlet have actually asked questions about this.
So it's important that we get this right.
The reason that these changes are being proposed is because we are in the process
of designing the new vehicles that we agreed to purchase in January.
And this is obviously a very significant level of expenditure for the council.
We are also dealing with some legacy issues because things like our brain banks were a
very early call for recycling. We now have improved those services by providing recycling
opportunities at people's doorsteps, which has really increased the amount of recycling
that we manage to achieve here. We are a top performing authority for recycling here, and
I think it is because of the way that we deliver our services. And of course we have new legislation
under simply recycling which comes into play on the 1st of April 2027.
So there are many long recommendations which I will not go
through unless the chair requires me to.
It's set out in the papers.
But basically, what we're asking cabinet to agree is that we remove the brain banks
that are currently provided across the district.
I believe there are 24 of them.
These are services for glass and cans and I believe paper.
Sorry, I don't have it in front of me.
These are services that we're now providing at the curbside,
so at people's homes, so we no longer need
to actually make the bring banks available in car parks.
And this is actually a good thing
because it costs us money to empty these banks.
But also, it just causes fly tipping because people leave waste at the side if they're
full.
Also, we think that some commercial operators, people who should be paying for their own
waste disposal, are actually putting things in these banks.
So we're asking to remove them, and it should not really adversely affect the ability for
a householder to recycle, and it will be beneficial financially for the Council.
Secondly, because of changes in legislation, we now have to collect plastic bags and wrapping
from the 1st of April, 2027, and we have made the decision to not supply additional bags.
Our modelling suggests that only around a third of people will actually take up the
service at the beginning, so we think that it would be perverse to provide bags for all
of the households if only a third of them will be using it, because then we will actually
be adding to the waste stream rather than reducing it.
However, other authorities in Gloucestershire
are doing somewhat different things.
And so as we move towards a unitary authority,
we will be able to compare and contrast
with all of the other districts to see
what the best solution is.
So I'm looking at this almost as a pilot.
Another recommendation in this report
is to now start to collect paper and card as one collection.
Right now they're in separate collections.
The content of paper is more valuable
as a recyclate material on the market.
However, it is a diminishing component
of the overall waste collection tonnage.
So what we're suggesting is that we just mix the two.
And I think as more people move to online deliveries, unfortunately,
that all comes wrapped in cardboard and the card content is going up.
This should make it a lot easier for people.
It does not actually add to any cost because initially we will be relying
on our existing blue bag plus box.
So people could just mix them up in the blue bag and the box
and it could just be mixed on the vehicle.
Also, we have quite a large stockpile of blue bags that we want to use up.
And finally, because of our great recycling ability, the residual waste bin, the 240 -litre
bin, will now be transferred to a smaller bin.
This isn't going to be that we're going to remove all of the large bins and replace them
with new bins.
It will be much simpler than that.
It will only be for new households, so when a new house is built, it will get a smaller
bin.
Or if somebody breaks their bin and they need a new bin, then they'll get a smaller bin.
So again, it's not a huge amount of financial outlay.
So what's really important to make these changes successful is, and this is what the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee highlighted, is that we have a very good communications plan because
it's quite a lot of changes all happening pretty much at the same time and I think people
are going to need a lot of hand -holding for that, understandably figuring out what to
do with all of the new services, particularly I think with the flexible plastics. Oh, sorry,
plastic bags and wrapping. And we want to avoid any unwanted consequences. So another
thing that the overview and scrutiny committee highlighted was that when we take away the
the brain banks, we need to just make sure that people don't go there and then see that
there's no more brain bank and then just leave their stuff there anyway. So we will be asking
Yubico to come around and cheque more often. So I think that's all I have to say. And if
there are any detailed questions, our officer here, our head of waste is here, and she can
answer those questions. Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:11:35
Thank you very much, Andrea. Just before I pass over to other members, just to clarify,
because I'm something you said and you can just I'm just checking back because
the recommendation 3 talks about reducing the size of the bin from 180
litres to 140 I think maybe you said 240 did you mean yeah so so just for the for
those watching at home Andreas acknowledged that she misspoke slightly
so what we're looking to do so is the current size of the where the black bins
we provide is 180 litres and as Andrea talked about when we get provide new
ones or replacement ones from when this comes in we will go to a slightly
smaller size of 140 so there'll be a 40 litre drop not a 100 litre drop in
case you were following that very closely. Right I've got Julia wanted to
come in and then I'll go to Peter if she wants to add anything. Julia.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:12:36
Thank you. Yeah, I've got, I just love this. I watched ONS on Monday with extreme interest
and some slight despair at the thought of, you know, issuing plastic bags to put plastic
in as a suggestion and, you know, why do we need to do that? But there is a question I'd
like to ask because in 2019, there was a company called Recycling Technologies ran a pilot
scheme from Tesco's and they put in a container, a box, like a letter box. It was no bigger
than a letter box. Before the day was out, it was full of plastic bags. It was instant
and they were shocked. Tesco's then had to provide a really large cage which gets full
up really quickly. Recycling technologies who were using a scheme, what did I call it
earlier, pyrolysis, which heats the plastic and melts it down
into a thing that they were calling plaques.
And the highest grade of plaques you can use for wax jackets,
you can use for lipsticks, you can use for, it's a similar
kind of grade of stuff as petroleum jelly.
And they had five -year bookings for this, for orders for that.
Unfortunately, they like many others either went into
administration have got bought up and the pilot in this area was not taken up
yet Tesco's all the supermarkets are collecting what I will now say and get
told off because I've been told off by Andrea because I call it flyaway plastic
but it's plastic bags and wrappings. What I want to know is where is it going to
go, is it going to be treated?
Are we getting a product?
Because the plaques that was high grade was the stuff like
plutonium jelly, and then it went down sort of like four
steps into something that was very, very thin and liquid.
So I would, I'm loving that we're doing this because it
enters our bins much, you know, clearer bins, smaller,
but be fine for the black ones because you can get so much
plastic crammed into a plastic bag, but if you just drop it
in your bin with all that air it fills it up. So that's my first question.
I love the fact that it's...
Officer - 0:15:03
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:15:04
Thank you Juliette. So just before I bring you in Peter, just for anybody following online, we do have a bit of a problem with the camera.
So it doesn't seem to be focusing on Juliette when she was speaking but hopefully anybody following could hear very clearly what she was saying.
We're trying to resolve that, but in the meantime Peter to give us the officer
Officer - 0:15:23
response. Thanks Peter. Thank you Chair. Yes, excellent question. Yeah it's a
challenging time I would say in the world of plastics. I think if we just
take a step back, it's not the plastics themselves that difficult to recycle. So
when we're talking about manufacturer single -stream plastic, it's plastic
it be recycled into new plastic. That's not the problem. When we're talking about
this post -consumer grade, which is really mixed. It's got the potential to be
contaminated with food, it's been printed, it's a very complicated waste stream and
that's where some of the complexities come in. What is happening is that
government has set a very clear intention for local authorities to
commence these collections. What's not quite so clear is how the
industry is scaling up to recycle. So there are many varied schemes that have
been running for a good few years now and there has been a lot of problems,
There has been a lot of turbulence in the market.
And so it's something that we're very much keeping a close eye on.
And we are aware that colleagues in the National Association of Waste Sposal Officers are also
starting to raise concerns about the readiness of the industry to cope with this material.
However, the direction is still that we need to have these collections in place.
And so we're very much planning for that.
If there is a shift, then we need to make sure that we only carry those collections
if there is somewhere to recycle them, because otherwise there's no point asking residents
to go to the extent of separating, et cetera.
But we have to plan because the deadline is there.
And we, you know, are very much hoping the industry will pick up.
But there is the, in terms of the reprocessing, yes,
there is the recycling back into plastics.
There are multiple grades it can go to.
And then there is the concept of chemical recycling,
where it's taken back down to the constituent, you know,
elements essentially and made back into plastics in that way.
So yes, there is a lot of discussion in the industry
about the reprocessing capacity.
In terms of where we are, just to be clear on that,
so there are off -takers, there are companies out there
that are recycling this material.
And the company that we use, Thamesdown,
to broker our material, and essentially what we have is some
of this non -target material, so non -target currently,
is coming in with the plastics and cans.
And so it's being separated by Thamesdown,
and it is being sent to markets.
They do have an off -taker in place,
and it is being recycled already.
That is really good to hear.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:17:46
My second question is about the paper and card.
Fully understand that.
There was, I know you've got squidsillions or 15 ,000
or whichever way you look at it, of the blue bags.
But I mean, that sounds a huge number, but when you think
of all the houses and if people need the replacing.
And there was a conversation in ONS that you weren't quite sure whether you were going
to keep the, continue with the blue bags or put it in a box.
The boxes I can't see would carry the card, particularly the blue bag.
You can get a lot of squashed down boxes.
But I was worried about the, not the contamination, but the fact that blue bags are normally outside.
Not everybody can keep those recycling things inside and in the dry.
and would the wet paper be an issue more than damp cardboard?
Thank you.
So yeah, again a really good question.
Officer - 0:18:43
So I mean fundamentally we're asking for the same materials in the same containers,
just giving residents the kind of freedom to put either one in those two containers.
So the guidance to residents is to present that in a way that we can try and keep it as dry as possible,
that we can try and keep it so that it doesn't become blown litter.
So it becomes the kind of the same problems that we have at the minute.
You know, either those fibres, so either the paper or the cardboard,
you know, wetness to them does cause problems.
So, you know, the drier we can keep it, the better.
I think the best that we can do at the minute is understand that
there is a potential to optimise those containers
and that is the direction of travel that we're seeking.
So looking at how we can improve it in the more medium term, I think.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:19:26
Just following that up Peter, so can we then in the communications or will we in
the communications I should say, when we start mixing card and paper together
saying that you can put your sort of card into the black box but we would
still encourage people to put the paper in the black box because the paper's got
a lid rather than it put it in the blue bag and often I'm sure lots of other
people have this you probably so I often see people have got bricks on the top of
their the lids to keep them so they don't blow off because obviously
Officer - 0:20:01
there's that risk that they can. Yeah absolutely so I think it's that
encouraging I think it's really a really good point to encourage residents to
present it in a way that you know is as dry as possible so maybe the cereal
packets etc can sneak into the box but those bigger pieces are going to be
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:20:18
better dealt with in the blue bag yeah. Thank you Peter. Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:20:24
Chair, I might have a couple of minor questions, but I might forget them by the time I get
them.
No, I wanted to take this opportunity to say how impressed I was by this report.
It's a hugely complicated question.
The government doesn't particularly help by introducing its plastics new proposal.
On the other hand, it has supplied some funds.
I think they're called EPR and we anticipate these funds may be enough.
And with this team of Andrea and Peter, together, we've got some
of the finest minds and best analysis I have seen in what
may be 35 years in local government.
And I've seen some pretty fine, well, they were all men in the
early days, obviously, but people in my time.
But to see how this has been tackled, the logical approach,
the realistic awareness of how human behaviour works,
and I was thinking I want a smaller grey bin can I give my old one back no that
doesn't make sense usually old one to its 50 years old or whatever when it
breaks but the other thing that might be helpful is with the plastic bags and
wrappings we need to get them in a tie plastic bag and I'm thinking this may
be an opportunity to use a significant number of these rather grey bags in
whichever so many things are delivered to my home in particular but that's from
my wife and I wonder what to do them at the moment let's bang them all together
and shove them take them down to waitrose and shove them in them but now I
can use each of them to bag more plastic sorry plastic bags and wrappings in and
put them out so I'm just as long as I can find a way of closing them doesn't
involve staples then I'll be there a serious point though that this is a
high quality piece of work. It deals with so many unknowns and so many partially knowns
and it leads us a good way forward and I don't think it's going to be too financially painful
for the council. That's the most important point of course.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:22:22
Thank you very much. Councillor Coleman. Councillor Evans for his first contribution at cabinet
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:22:32
meetings. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to highlight
it to support Councillor Coleman's point that this is an excellent report. I just wanted
to highlight that I think to Andreas initial comments about there being media
coverage on this I think it's probably worth pointing out that the plan to
reduce the size of bins is over a is over a period of time and it isn't an
immediate take away your bin it is a there's new properties come online or
they are replaced that's when we're looking to to make that replacement
just thought it was worth noting that important point. Thank you Paul and I
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:23:08
think yeah that is it is a really important point I mean I think that with
the work that's already we've already done and that's now being led by Andrea
and Peter in terms of improving our recycling actually there will be people
some people and actually maybe one of them that welcome a smaller bin because
it's easier to store a smaller bin than it is a bigger one.
So actually reducing the volume that's going in residual waste
is both environmentally good, but potentially it's
easier for everybody to handle if their waste bin isn't
as large.
Anyone else got anything that they want to say on this?
I'll just make one other observation
or a couple of other observations.
As a former portfolio holder, lots of discussion
about Bringbanks at the time, and at the time a few years ago when I had the portfolio,
it was sort of revenue neutral.
So we sort of maintained them, but clearly, you know, it is a service that, you know,
no longer meets the, what it was set up for, and it is a legacy which I'm very comfortable
that we will now withdraw.
But picking up on the points that Andrea made and ONS that we will make sure that we're
that were taken them away and what people who legitimately use them can
where they can put their recycling instead and obviously the point about
just checking afterwards so there's not people aren't just dumping newspapers
there and making a mess and then the other point about plastic bags because it
seems to me that this is a service we obviously the government is saying that
they want us all councils to deliver I know it's something that we've been
talking and looking about certainly when I had the portfolio questions about
could we do this and other people are doing it and but it's still relatively
in its infancy a curbside service I think this North Somerset I think has
led the way on this and it does feel logical to not give people a plastic bag
to put plastic bags in and we don't do that for the food waste so it makes I
think hopefully that we can demonstrate that the people who want to do what
Patrick does, well they'll make more people will now do it from home and they
can use a bread bag to put all their other bags in and things like that so
that we're not creating more waste to collect waste which doesn't really
logically make sense. So I'm very happy to see support the recommendations. So
we've got Andrea you're moving them. Yeah. Read out the recommendation. I don't think
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:25:45
you need to read them out because I think you introduced them but I'll just
So we're on page 25 and 26, on page 26.
So you're moving those.
And do we have a seconder for that?
Councillor Layton has just said me in my ear.
So that's the seconder.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:26:05
So Andrea, if you wanna turn your microphone off,
unless you want to say anything else.
No, we will go to the vote then
on the recommendations, please.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:26:23
The seven votes in favour. That's unanimous. So thank you very much. And thank you very
much, Peter. Enjoy the rest of your evening. So we're now going to move on to agenda item

10 Asset Management - Abberley House/ Corinium Museum Roof Repair Project

10, which is the Abberley House and Carinium Museum roof repair project. So I'm going to
hand over to Councillor Coleman to kick us off on this one page 63 Patrick
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:26:54
you've just got there haven't you? Thank you chair the recommendation which I'm
moving is that cabinet resolves to do two things first agree that repair work
to the roof is to be expedited and secondly delegate authority to the
section 151 officer in consultation with the cabinet member for finance myself to receive
quotations for the repair work and to instruct work to be carried out and to deal with minor
matters arising during the works. I'm very pleased that the work to put this building
in proper order has reached this stage of seeking permission and as you perhaps might
expect at paragraph 5 .1 we've identified the officers have identified a
significant sum of money which should may well be enough to carry out the work.
The Corinium Museum is housed with within and alongside I think is where
putting it Abilie House and one of my experiences here in my early days on
this council which almost surprised me was how in times when the council tax
tended to be frozen if they could get away with it.
There was one big exception, which was almost anything that was to do with the Crinium Museum.
It had a wholehearted cross -party backing.
And that proved to be valuable and I think worthwhile and effective when we see that
museum and the excellent condition and the way it's being run.
But it does need a building that doesn't let the rain in, and that can be very difficult.
This is a listed building, so we've got an extra need to look after it.
and I'm grateful to the officers for having got us as far as we've got.
And I'm pretty hopeful that we'll find contractors to do the work because there are so many old and precious buildings in Cotswold district,
possibly the second largest number of listed buildings in the country.
So that has led to some very experienced work people with all kinds of specialisms.
So this is positive with a positive outlook. Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:29:02
Patrick, anyone else want to ask any questions? Tony, you're there, I know, watching us online,
so if you want to say anything, I need to sort of understand how you want to do that.
But I'm sure you'll make yourself known if you do want to say anything. Any other members
before I say something? No, well, I'll just say to follow up on what Patrick has said.
Clearly this is an important listed building in the middle of Sire and Sester.
We have a duty, as it says in the report, as the owner of the building, not to maintain
that listed building.
And obviously it's critically important for the museum and for the tenants that we have
in the other part of the building that we have a sound roof and that it's watertight.
And these things are very difficult.
roof as I understand and you can see that from the map that we've on page 69
it's quite a tricky unusual shaped roof so it's not going to be a simple job and
it hasn't been to I think probably identify the issues I'm looking over at
Alan the officer who's been leading on this and his team so it's difficult
thing but we have a responsibility also noting that you know we are it going to
look I think it's in para 9 .1 to see what we're doing the pre -construction
works to see whether that it might be at all possible to put solar panels on the
roof because we understand that the roof isn't really visible which is the normal
constraint on putting solar panels on listed building roofs but that may may
not be possible but we want to just to see whether that's that is a possibility
So yeah at the moment obviously we don't know how much it's going to cost we're
going to go out to to get quotes in and that will be a matter for David in
consultation with Patrick to make that decision but yeah I'm very happy to
support this as well. Anybody have a seconder? Councillor Evans.
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:31:15
Can I, thank you chair. Tony you want to say something hopefully we can hear
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:31:20
you. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? We can now, Tony. Yeah, go for it. Oh, marvellous.
Well, I think only to reiterate that which I said to Alan and his officers, which is
it's a magnificent job you've done and well done for us saying the problem and addressing
it. But I just do hope that when we get to understanding what the nature of the problem
is and we have a fix for it that we do try and fix it the first time and fix it for good.
I know it's been a long and difficult and challenging process and I know Alan you'll want
to share a successful outcome as much as I and the cultural leaders of the Conswolds would like
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:32:11
to as well as well as Patrick I'm sure he doesn't want to spend too much. Thank you very much yeah
it's in the job not to spend too much when you're cabinet member for finance I think.
Councillor Evans, back to you.
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:32:19
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, happy to second this proposal.
Maintaining our assets just feels the right
and responsible thing to do.
And I suspect that in the long term,
fixing it properly and fixing it for good
will save us a few pennies over the longer term.
So yeah, happy to support it.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:32:36
Thank you, Paul.
Patrick, have you got anything to add
before we go to the vote?
No, so can we go for the vote then please on this one?
Thank you.
That's seven votes unanimously in favour.
So thanks very much for that one.
So we'll now move on to agenda item 11 on page 75 of the agenda.
Local government reorganisation at Gloucestershire structural changes order, the new acronyms
SCO that we're going to have to get used to as well as LGR.

11 Local Government Reorganisation - Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order

So as it says in the report, the reason that this is coming here is because we received
the letter, which is one of the annexes to the report from government Ruth Miller in
the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, a senior civil servant there,
asking, writing to the chief executives across Gloucestershire and asking us to make representations
on what's called the structural changes order. And that is the legal document that the government
is drawing up and will put before parliament to make changes to the councils in Gloucestershire.
so as we expect to abolish the existing councils and set up one or two new ones.
What you will also have picked up is that we weren't quite expecting this
just yet before we had a decision from the government on which of the proposals
or indeed an alternative proposal that they might determine should be the
future local government reorganisation or local councils in the county and just
to reiterate the point that it's the government that decides this not us
we've been consulted but ultimately a government minister will make the
decision on how government councils are reorganising Gloucestershire and this is
part of that how so once the decision we're still expecting by the summer
recess say by the 17th of July but your notes in the report and in the letter
from Ruth Miller that they would like our response by Tuesday 16th of June and
if you're able to provide an earlier response that would be appreciated and
they only sent that on the 19th of May so they've given us less than a month to
to respond which isn't long to really give a lot of to have a lot of
discussion we can give consideration but indeed you know the reason that this is
coming before us this evening is there isn't time for it to go anywhere else.
Although it was considered by the overview and scrutiny committee on Monday and the chief
executive and I were there to answer questions and hear what they had to say.
There is a tabled response to the recommendations that came from the overview and scrutiny committee.
I think we'll make that available online.
and the answers essentially to the questions I'm going to go through when I
talk to how we're intending to respond I'm asking you to agree that we should
respond and therefore there is also a another document which I'm sure we will
also be publishing which members of the cabinet have in front of them which is a
proposal for how we as COTS should respond on behalf of COTS World
District Council. So just for clarity, it's an executive decision, so one for us
as the executive of the council to make. We're essentially giving a view to the
government as will the other six county councils in Gloucestershire and
then they will consider those and then they will make a decision. So just moving
to the substantive parts and I'll just focus on a few of them, not every single
questions, so essentially they've asked us 10 questions
and across the three different models that have been proposed.
So the single unitary for Gloucestershire, the east,
what's known as the east -west split, and what's known as the
greater Gloucester and residual Gloucestershire model.
So, and for each of those, we've been asked a question about the
how it should, how they should be set up.
And I just want to focus on two or three of them, as I said,
that are probably ones where need a little bit more explanation. The
first one I'm going to touch on and potentially one that's been the most
the most complex one to get your head around is if we have a single unitary
council for Gloucestershire whether we should use what's called a
pairing authority, formerly known as a continuing authority, or a shadow council,
shadow authority model. And essentially the the difference between the two is
around whether the County Council technically in this continues and
essentially the unitary functions are taken on by the County Council so it
legally continues with a new name, and we'll get onto that, or whether it's essentially
reconstructed as a brand new council in that case.
There are pluses and minuses of both, and in the business case that we put forward to
government last year, we said that we would want it to be a continuing authority, now
called preparing authority.
Now there have been more reflections and more discussions and more understandings since
then and it may be that some councils choose now to change their mind on that
and suggest that we should have a shadow authority. What I'm suggesting to for us
as Cotswold District Council is that we do continue with the what's called now
preparing authority and I put in the the table paper the comments and the support
rationale for that. So support for preparing authority is more simple
because it doesn't mean that you have two sets of councillors at a county level
at the same time. So essentially what will happen is if this is chosen by the
government the elections next May will elect 110 people who will become the
county council and they will also be cut essentially as soon as they're elected
and then 11 months later they will become the unitary council. So it is
simpler because you haven't got two sets of county -wide councillors at the same
time and there is there would be additional cost if we went to a shadow
council I think that was estimated at six six seven hundred thousand pounds
and it is more complex because the staff who currently work for the County Council
would need to have their roles transferred under the transfer to P and
I try to remember what that is the chief executive might remember when we get to
the but essentially that it is a simpler way of doing it and that's what's been
used in Somerset and in North Yorkshire, who most recently changed over to a single county
unitary.
But I think the points that are being made potentially in favour of a shadow council
are very valid, and that's why the comment there talks about the culture.
So what we want in a new authority is a new authority, not the county council and what
to, and that's really, really important.
And so what I put in the note there, or we're putting in the
note, is that the challenge of setting a new culture in
preparing authority is recognised, and it's got to be
a top priority for the new council if the government
chooses that model.
So that's where I think we are on that.
Then on names, so I think we, the Gloucestershire Council was
the name that was suggested for the single authority.
There's some information in here about if we have a single authority with a joint committee
and how that's structured.
So in all of the three proposals, it's proposed there's an equal number of county councillors
and councillors from the district and borough councils.
The joint committees or the implementation executive, which it will be if it's a single
unitary, will run in the run up to the shadow elections, but they will stop after the shadow
elections because that newly elected authority will then have the responsibility for making
the decisions.
And there is part of the letter that says in advance of having this formally set up,
which the structural changes order, which I didn't say, they want us to feed back by
16th of June, but essentially won't come into, won't be laid before parliament and the timetable
is in the papers until quite late on, since winter, I think.
So maybe just after Christmas, and then won't become law
until March of next year.
So what the government is asking, whatever model they
choose, that we start working together in that model in advance
of the legal things happening.
So obviously we've already been working collaboratively
in Gloucestershire, and that would just be there for a tweak.
There's some, hopefully, suggestions about how we vote,
have a majority voting.
Each person has one vote.
So if we have the single model suggestion is that the in the shadow, in the implementation
executive or the shadow account or the joint committee that the leader of GCC is the chair
and one of the district leaders is the deputy.
Political balance is mentioned across the reports.
So what I've put in the comment there is that ultimately that's a matter of the county
council because it's going to affect them.
So, on the joint committees you'd have, in this single example, you'd have six county
councillors and six district councillors, city, borough, and they're the six leaders
essentially or their deputies.
So there cannot be political balance for those because they are named from those administrations.
So, and currently there are four liberal Democrat leaders and two green leaders of the district
that level.
And obviously we have a Lib Dem administration minority at the county council.
So ultimately that's I think a decision for the County Council to take about how it feels that it wants to be represented through this process.
So I think we should leave that to them.
And then I just made notes around the warding arrangements.
So they were in the proposal.
So if the single unitary goes ahead we'll have 55 wards and they'll each elect two councillors.
That's the proposal that we've had and that's the expectation that we'll be going forward.
conscious of time and I've been talking quite a lot so I'll just mention briefly
the other two models and what's different so in the east -west model they
are asking about names. The comments that I'm suggesting we put forward in the
absence and no one has come up with any names as I'm sitting here right now
alternative to these that the geographic descriptors are the best that we have
See, they've been used in Surrey.
Northamptonshire, when it was split, had geographic descriptors
as well, although not, I think, west and northeast.
So, and then obviously the challenge of any name is whether
it's inclusive of the whole area that you represent.
So that's what I'm suggesting that at the moment we go with
east and west if that option is chosen.
And make the same point about the joint committees
and the voting.
when we have the joint committee option this will have joint committees because
it it'll be two unitaries that the chair of would be one of the leaders not
necessarily the County Council leader and then the Deputy Chair would be the
County Council leader if that person isn't the chair and vice versa that
makes clear same point around political balance and I haven't mentioned the
elections, but they're asking about the returning officers.
I think that's really a matter for,
obviously we can respond on that on behalf of the council,
but the officers are discussing that amongst themselves
because obviously it's a matter for officers in terms of,
whilst we appoint returning officers,
it's a role that the officers take on our senior officers.
And then awarding is already written in the East West split
into the proposals.
So I'm not suggesting any change to that.
One thing I haven't been mentioned earlier is alignment
of the Town and Parish Council elections.
So the proposal from the government, as I understand it,
is for the new council to be elected in May of 2027
and to essentially their term to run for five years
until May of 2032,
with a view that they have a year as a shadow.
Now, I'm not sure whether that's exactly the same,
if we get a single unitary.
This is some of the uncertainty on these things.
But if it does run to five years, I think we would suggest and I would support aligning
the, and we would support aligning the unitary elections with the town of parish council
elections in 2032, whenever they happen.
But the note that I've put in here is that actually we need to get their views on that
because currently they are aligned with our district council elections.
They are due to happen next year, whatever happens, and they have four year terms.
So I don't think what we wouldn't want is an election in 2031 for the towns and
parishes and in 2032 for the unitary authority.
So that just needs finessing and depends on what comes out of the structural changes order.
And they're just finishing off with the Greater Gloucester model and I'm conscious
that I've talked quite a long time.
These names were the names that the Gloucester and I'm conscious that we didn't consider
that as in our council debate.
we didn't have the full proposal on that through our council so I'm not going to
comment a lot on that other than responses which are probably going to be
collectively agreed around how the joint committee is composed and the names of
the two council will be Greater Gloucester and Gloucestershire in that
scenario so I will stop there and let's open it up for members for questions and
comments. Anyone like to start us off or if I bored you to tears with discussion
about the structural changes order which I'm sure we're going to be looking at
and thinking about for some months to come. So I'll give Councillor Coleman as
our longest most experienced Councillor, he's probably been through this before
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:47:33
to open it up. I'm not going to refer back to previous experience but just at the
there you mentioned this option of Greater Gloucester and the rest of the
county being coming Gloucestershire and this is an option that's supported by
Gloucester City Council but not perhaps many other people and I thought being a
fair -minded person, honestly I am, well there must be something we can say about
this and perhaps the government will see Gloucester needs a fair bit of
regeneration or needs to continue its regeneration and maybe as a unitary on its own it might
thrive. Well the experience with previous small unitaries isn't that great. I don't
want to be rude about them but our neighbours in Swindon had a very difficult time as a
small unitary authority and I can't say they're out of the wood yet. I will refrain from referring
to any other cities, towns and small unitaries in case I upset too many people. But that's
That's the point I wanted to make.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:48:33
Thank you, Chair.
And as of course, you know, but the viewer, people watching made at home may not know
that I am a former member of Swinburne Council.
I lived through that change to unitary status back in 97.
And I did see the impact.
And you know, the council went through some difficult times in the particularly in the
early 2000s.
And yeah, it's, and part of the government's agenda is to,
or was stated to get bigger councils,
but clearly we've obviously observed the decisions
they've taken in the priority areas
where they have chosen councils that have populations
of under 300 ,000, which we weren't necessarily expecting
when they went out and said that this is
what they wanted to do.
So yes, I mean, I think, yeah, all I would say,
and certainly from discussions with the chief executive,
and I will give you the opportunity, Jane,
I realise I've not, to say something,
is that the government is taking seriously all three proposals
and is questioning officers on all three proposals.
And indeed, you know, Jane and colleagues have sort
of put forward the case for the proposal
that this council endorsed for the single unitary,
and challenged around that by MHCLG.
So they're doing their work, I guess, to be able to present
to ministers the options and answer all the questions
that ministers might ask them at the point that they get
to make a decision.
I'm going to give you the opportunity now, Jane,
to say something, which I should have done before.
Jane Portman, CEO - 0:50:13
I just wanted to reconfirm, and I suppose you've just alluded
to it, Mike, that the officers who are working together on local government reorganisation
across Gloucestershire are working really, really well together. It's a great team of
people. We've got a high level of consistent approach to the programme, which is very complicated,
very complex piece of work. There's a lot of risk involved. And we are very encouraged
that whilst there might be difference of views on occasion,
that actually we work through those and we have presented
those differences well to our leaders who then may or may not
agree with each other.
But I think the whole partnership is a real strength
of Gloucestershire and I'm really proud to be part of it.
I'm really proud that we've got such a great partnership going
and I'm sure it will continue because the foundations are there of really good
positive working relationships and a positive approach to tackling this kind
of rather large project. In respect to our representations, as you will be aware
from Councillor Evermy's introductory remarks, we're on a very short timetable
here. We've only got until the 16th of June. All the councils across Gloucestershire
are having to use what opportunities they have in terms
of meetings they'd already got on their timetable,
on their published timetable of meetings.
It just so happens that we're first.
I think there's one, certainly our overview and scrutiny panel
on Monday were the first group of members to publicly consider
these questions that MHCLG have posed and what are possible
representations are.
I think there's another council got a meeting tonight, but then the others will follow, but what we're planning to do is
collate all of the representations from the seven councils into one document and where there is agreement.
That's fantastic. If there is a difference of opinion on any of these questions across the three proposals,
we will highlight those differences and explain the rationale for the different approaches.
But we're hoping for a high level of consistency and
we'll be submitting that one set of representations by the deadline of the 16th of June.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:52:48
Tony wants to say something now. Yeah, brilliant. Come on in, Tony.
Thank you, leader. As the leader knows, I've had one or two years of experience of large -scale
transformation in some hundred million and billion pound organisations.
Jane, well spoken. I think your ambitions and the consensual leadership, which we're already seeing, is going to put us in a good place.
I do not think this will be the last short -term ask of this council or the other councils.
doing something on this scale at this speed requires huge amounts of decision -making.
And as I'm sure you are aware, and I can only reinforce it publicly, simplify, simplify, simplify.
We will make it easier for all of us the simpler we make the transformation at every step.
If we go for the most straightforward of options,
when we are then blending six authorities
with a County Council,
that will make for much faster and easier decision -making.
So Jane, with your fellow officers,
you're doing an excellent job.
I think as cabinet members,
we've made some good decisions already.
We're planning to this evening
about how the structural changes order should go forward.
I'm sure we'll be asked to make more decisions like this, but I am very, very much in favour
of keeping the processes tight and as fast as we can make it and hope to goodness that
it is possible to transform over £800 million worth of public sector organisation in 12
months.
Good luck.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:54:40
Thank you very much, Tony.
Any other members want to say anything?
Yeah, Mike.
Councillor Mike McKeown - 0:54:49
I think following on from Tony's point, I agree.
I mean, both of us are quite involved in transformation
professionally.
Tony Moore probably at the business transformation side.
My whole history is in the technology industry
and currently working in AI, as you all know,
and I'm nicknamed AI Mike.
But I think the bigger point is what
I hope this is we can grasp a huge opportunity here
is not to simply take a set of councils
and merge them together as they are, but take that as a huge transformation opportunity
with changing things, see how we can change them for the better, find new and better ways
of doing things.
Clearly in my area the world is changing dramatically.
It will be very different by the time we get to 27, 28.
I think there's a huge opportunity to do that and it would be a shame to miss it.
It's not easy to achieve that, but it'd be good for us all to think, you know, how can we change
what we do, not just merge it and grasp that opportunity, deliver better services for our
residents and be more cost effective too? Well, I can, you know, that that is a big challenge,
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:55:58
because I'm sure that the officers and, you know, are making sure they'll be, we've got to make sure
that this council is safe and legal to operate on the 1st of April 2028, all councils, because,
you know they councils in a providing vital services also the services that we
provide housing and refuse and all of those things that we provide but the
county provides life and death services as well you know like children's services
and adult care so those things have to be done but at the same point you're
right we have to think about what's the opportunity potentially to take the
synergies from that how do we transform the services and so they'll yeah there's
those two things obviously potentially bringing attention in the whole programme
but there's a total understanding I think that you know we can't just
essentially bolt it all together and we need to think about how to then create a
new council thinking about how we can deliver services and we've had some
discussions about that chain and I'm struggling to remember the terminology
it's the operating to target operating model isn't it how we're going to
operate as a council and think about that rather just say well just take all
services up. So there are, there's thinking going on about that but thank you for making that point.
Anybody else got any more to say on this structural changes order LGR? Anything of that ilk?
No? Okay, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to move, adapt the recommendation slightly in front
of you so that it makes sense in light of what I've done. So instead of the words consider
representations I'm going to ask cabinet to endorse the cabinet response
document as the basis for its response and then carry on to the question set
out by the rest of that resolution by the ministers so endorse the cabinet
response document as the basis for its response the question set out by the
Ministry of Housing Communities and local government regarding Gloucestershire
structural changes order and then the second one is delegate authority to the
of the Council to submit formal representations to MHCLG by their deadline of the 6th of June
2026. Do I have a second for that please?
I was looking at you Tristan.
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:58:20
So I am going to reluctantly second this. So I'm willing to but I'm not happy to and
Labour government telling us to do things with very little regard to the impact on local
communities. The discussion we just had tonight shows the level of passion and the level of
substance against these sorts of decisions and I think that they require enough time
and space to do them justice. So this is too important to do in three and a half weeks.
The consequences of these decisions, you know, these communities will be living with maybe
for generations. And I think that, you know, it's become unfortunate that, you know, the
pace of the government's requirements to be seen to be doing things means that the sharp
end of those decisions, communities like ours are sort of being barrelled into making decisions.
So I am willing to support it because it's really important that we get this right. But
I do think the government needs to take note that if they keep doing this, then the goodwill
of organisations like ours and our communities will start to run out quite quickly.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:59:29
Thank you Tristan and yeah I think that's a really good point about you
know I mentioned the town of Harish for example there's no time to consult the
town of Harish councils about what they think about the point I made about their
elections I've just sort of had to assume that they don't want to be on a
different day than they can elections for the unitary council because they
obviously that potentially has an additional cost and overhead and
everything else because we haven't had a chance to time to do that but yeah so
I think as Patrick said you know it's probably not the first time it's gonna
happen and we'll get potentially have more anyway on that note can we move to
the vote then please on the recommendations as I've just read out
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:00:17
Thank you very much, everybody. That's seven votes in favour. That's unanimous. Right,

12 Asset Management - Out of District Investment Properties

we now get to agenda item 12, out of district investment properties. Members of the public
watching may note that there is exempt annexes which are identified in the agenda as 14.
I'm intending to take this session in public, so ask members not to refer to anything that's
not in the main report, so not to use any information that's in the exempt annexes.
If members do feel they want to say something or question something that's in the exempt
Tanax says we will need to vote to go into private session and that has to be a
vote that's taken before we can do that and then we switch the broadcasting off.
But rather we discuss this in public. It was considered by the overview and
scrutiny committee at the meeting on Monday which I attended on behalf of
Councillor Coleman and before I hand over to him to introduce it I'll just
bring to members attention that the Opium Scrutiny Committee did choose to go
into private and didn't consider any of this in public. So this will be the first
time it has been considered in public but they did indicate that probably they
were supportive of the recommendations. So I'll hand over now to Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:01:56
Thank you very much, Chair. The recommendations are moving on this item in two parts. The
cabinet results to number one, approve the recommendation to actively market all three
out of district investment properties for disposal. And number two, delegate to the
Strategic Head of Housing Property and Assets to progress negotiations with support from
the Assistant Director of Legal Services.
So yes, it's now the time to look again at these three retail properties which were purchased
in 2010 after money was allocated in 2009.
Those dates precede any of our time here on this order with a possible exception
of our officers. I don't know, may have been here. And I think most of us would
be aware that at that time the priority of the council under its then leadership
was to do anything they could reasonably to minimise the increase in council tax
and by obtaining revenue. The report doesn't say that because it's a slightly
political statement but I think that was their purpose in fact I'm sure it was.
get some revenue ins to help them avoid increases in council tax legitimate
though perhaps not always wise approach in my view there is as the chair said
exempt information on what would normally be pink pages but on my copy
of white and I'm sure we don't necessarily need to look at those today
the work that's been done so far I think it's very helpful and the prospects for
reach of the three sites are well described, though mainly in confidence. We turn to the
financial implications in section 7, reminding us that any disposal will result in a reduction
in net revenue income. But we've already, in association with the reduced returns, reduced
our budget or our MTFS estimate for investment property income by a hundred thousand for
this year, reflecting current market conditions and potential void period costs.
So I'm grateful for the chair standing in for me at overview and scrutiny.
I'm pleased to hear they were able to go into private session and ask the sort of questions
that scrutiny perhaps should ask.
I don't know what the questions were, as I can't look it up on the screen, but I'm sure they were thoughtful.
And I just finally point out that paragraph 4 .1 summarises one of the reasons in a way
for looking again at these investments.
It says, while the council's portfolio of out of district investment properties is relatively modest,
the council's investments are not diversified.
that all properties are within the commercial retail sector,
property values in this sector have reduced
as the wider retail economy has contracted post -COVID
as consumer behaviour has changed.
And I do recall that one of the reasons
I was fairly keen for this to happen
is that I don't think our successors
as a unitary authority would be too pleased
to be handed this rather small bundle of awkwardly located,
well, from our point of view, awkwardly located,
from the point of view of the people who shot there, quite local, quite convenient.
But anyway, I think it could be seen as helping to simplify in a small way the transition
to unitary authorities if we are able to come to acceptable arrangements.
And that is of course important if.
So I'm happy to move the recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Patrick.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:05:52
I'm happy to second the recommendations.
I seem to have spent a lot of time talking about these properties when I had your job
for six years.
And members will know that the store at Great Bridge was formerly occupied by Wilco.
Wilco went bust famously.
And so that's where you can see the costs there rather than income in that period from
from 2023, 24 through to 2025, 26.
And as Patrick referred to, clearly,
what these properties have done is they generated
that income, which at the start was around
about 300 ,000 pounds a year.
And our estimate for this year is now 188 ,000.
So I think that tells you something about
where the retail the rental market for retail properties is
In that it's even with inflation and we know we've had a significant burst of inflation
Following the full -scale invasion of Ukraine. We're still getting
About six we're only getting about 60 % of what we were getting
14 years ago, so that says something about that and also therefore
that these properties and we can see it in terms of the net valuations of them
obviously and the market values and obviously what I can say and I'll say in
public which is what I said in the private session is that this is not the
decision to dispose of these properties it's the decision to see if to test the
market to find out whether there's willing buyers out there and then we can
make a decision about whether we wish to dispose of them. But yeah, clearly the
government, in terms of what's happened with local government finances since
this period, whilst these properties were bought out of capital funding, others
were bought on credit eventually when councils borrowed money from the
and some of them got into very significant difficulties by doing so and
are really in financial difficulties now because they borrowed a lot of money
to buy property that's now worth less than they paid for it. So yeah obviously
yeah it's disappointing well we'll wait and see what what what we can get for
these properties and then we'll make a decision about whether to dispose of
them and whether to suppose one, two or all of them or whether we choose to keep them
and as Patrick says, hand them over to our successors.
I think hopefully by doing this work, thank you to Alan and his team for doing this and
David I'll give you a chance to say something in a second if you want to say anything or
Alan because David and I have lots of conversations about these to get us to a point where we
could make this they could bring this forward in front of us and obviously
then if they do come back and we do think that we might want to dispose or
some of them then that'll be a separate decision -making process that will come
to us and depending on the amounts involved may have to go to Council and
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:09:18
David have you got anything you wanted to say on this just very briefly chair
so table two which is on page 110 of your packs does show for the last
two full years that the council has lost money in terms of the net revenue stream, so only
3 ,000 pounds in 24, 25, but the holding of those properties cost us 21 ,000 for the financial
year just ended.
Whilst the forecast for the current financial year is positive, 188 ,000, that does require
the tenancies that are in place in the occupation
that is in place to continue for that full year.
And as members would appreciate,
the retail market is changing rapidly
and the desire for bricks and mortar stores
is chasing rapidly.
So I suppose the view here is whilst we've now got
to a position where the tenancies on all those properties
has been lined up to enable us to do this,
The 188 ,000 is based on full occupation, no void periods, no rental reductions for any
other reason.
So it's quite a fragile position I think that particular segment of the commercial property
market is in.
So this is a good time to test that market for disposal, but that requires a set to overview
of scrutiny of willing buyers and willing sellers.
So the previous table on table one, the page before,
gives you a view of the estimated market value
that's being undertaken by Harry,
who works in Alan's team.
Clearly that's an indication of market value.
There may not be buyers willing to pay that price.
There may be buyers willing to pay more than that price.
So this is what this is intended to do,
is to test market appetite to that disposal.
And as Councillor Everamir said,
upon receipt of any bids, then there's a process that will go through following the Constitution
in terms of how the decision is made on any future disposal options.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:11:28
Thank you very much, David. Has any other member got any questions or observations?
Thank you, Tristan. Just keeping to the main report. Tristan.
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:11:39
I think this is really important. I don't believe we should be as a council in the business
of being landlords. I think it's a real distraction, even in good times. I think it was an interesting
business model and it kind of made sense, but times have changed. I think there's too
much risk and volatility in this marketplace. I think we have enough core things to do in
terms of representing the people of the Cotswolds to be managing real estate around the country
in places that most of us couldn't point to on a map.
So I think that given David's kind of outlook
that even the most optimistic view doesn't take
into consideration replacing of roofs or any sort
of substantial repairs.
And as we've seen on other items on our agenda,
those things can run into significant costs.
So I think that it would be, if we can get this off our books
and focus on the key things that the people of the Cotswolds care
about.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:12:36
Thank you.
Tristan, any other comments?
Patrick, do you want to say anything to sum up?
Are you happy?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:12:48
Just briefly, yes, to thank David Stanley and I for the
work they've done on this, which, you know, did require
a fair bit of research and has allowed us to reach this stage.
Thank you very much.
Brilliant.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:13:04
So then we'll go to the vote there on the recommendations
that are on page 107 that Patrick read out at the start.
Oh, he seconded that.
Oh, sorry, I was seconding it.
Thank you, I forgot to say that when I introduced.
One to vote.
Thank you very much.

There are currently no votes to display