Interactive webcast player

Council
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 6:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer
  2. Councillor Tom Stowe
  3. Councillor Mark Harris
  4. Councillor Mike Evemy
  5. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Nikki Ind
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. 03. To confirm the Minutes of a meeting of Council held on 15 July 2026 (as amended)
    Status: Ended
  4. 03. To confirm the Minutes of a meeting of Council held on 12 August 2026
    Status: In progress
  5. 03. To confirm the Minutes of a meeting of Council held on 12 August 2026
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mark Harris
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Julia Judd
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. Councillor Andrea Pellegram
  4. Councillor Mark Harris
  5. Councillor David Cunningham
  6. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  7. Councillor Mark Harris
  8. Councillor Tom Stowe
  9. Councillor Mike Evemy
  10. Councillor Mark Harris
  11. Councillor Mark Harris
  12. Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson
  13. Councillor Mike Evemy
  14. Councillor Mark Harris
  15. Councillor Daryl Corps
  16. Councillor Juliet Layton
  17. Councillor Mark Harris
  18. Councillor Gina Blomefield
  19. Councillor Mark Harris
  20. Councillor Mike Evemy
  21. Councillor Mark Harris
  22. Councillor Daryl Corps
  23. Councillor Juliet Layton
  24. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Councillor Tom Stowe
  5. Councillor Mark Harris
  6. Councillor David Fowles
  7. Councillor Mark Harris
  8. Councillor Juliet Layton
  9. Councillor Mark Harris
  10. Councillor Nikki Ind
  11. Councillor Mark Harris
  12. Councillor Paul Evans
  13. Councillor Mark Harris
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Mark Harris
  16. Councillor Julia Judd
  17. Councillor Mark Harris
  18. Councillor Lisa Spivey
  19. Councillor Mark Harris
  20. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  21. Councillor Mark Harris
  22. Councillor Paul Evans
  23. Councillor Mark Harris
  24. Councillor Gina Blomefield
  25. Councillor Mark Harris
  26. Councillor Daryl Corps
  27. Councillor Mark Harris
  28. Councillor Mike Evemy
  29. Councillor Mark Harris
  30. 07. CWG: National Scheme of Delegation (Discharge of Local Planning Functions) (as amended)
    Status: In progress
  31. 07. CWG: National Scheme of Delegation (Discharge of Local Planning Functions) (as amended)
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Mike Evemy
  2. Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
  3. Councillor David Fowles
  4. Councillor Paul Evans
  5. Councillor Mark Harris
  6. Councillor David Cunningham
  7. Councillor Mark Harris
  8. Councillor Julia Judd
  9. Councillor Mark Harris
  10. Councillor Lisa Spivey
  11. Councillor Mark Harris
  12. Councillor Mike Evemy
  13. Councillor Mark Harris
  14. 08. Polling Station Review, recommendations 1-3
    Status: In progress
  15. 08. Polling Station Review, recommendations 1-3
    Status: Ended
  16. Councillor Mark Harris
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  2. Councillor Mark Harris
  3. Councillor Angus Jenkinson
  4. Councillor Mark Harris
  5. Angela Claridge
  6. Councillor Angus Jenkinson
  7. Angela Claridge
  8. Councillor Mark Harris
  9. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  10. Councillor Mark Harris
  11. Councillor Angus Jenkinson
  12. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  13. Councillor Mark Harris
  14. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  15. Councillor Ray Brassington
  16. Councillor Mark Harris
  17. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  18. Councillor Mark Harris
  19. Councillor David Cunningham
  20. Councillor Mark Harris
  21. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  22. Councillor Mark Harris
  23. Councillor Ray Brassington
  24. Councillor Mark Harris
  25. David Stanley, Deputy CEO
  26. Councillor Mark Harris
  27. Councillor Tony Dale
  28. Councillor Mark Harris
  29. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  30. Councillor Mark Harris
  31. 10. Treasury Outturn Report 2025-26, recommendations 1-2
    Status: In progress
  32. 10. Treasury Outturn Report 2025-26, recommendations 1-2
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Councillor Mark Harris - 0:00:00
public in attendance and those watching online.
You're all very welcome.
For those watching at home,
we'll be using electronic voting
and we'll broadcast the outcome of each vote.
Should anything go wrong with electronic voting,
which cannot be resolved,
we'll revert to voting by a clear show of hands.
So we'll go to the first item, which is apologies.

1 Apologies

Nicky, we got any apologies?
Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer - 0:00:22
We have apologies from Councillor Helen Mansella.
Fantastic.
Councillor Stowe, yes.
and
Councillor Tom Stowe - 0:00:33
Councillor Wilkins has had a something pop up. He was planned to come but could now no longer make it. So please record his apologies. Thank you
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:00:37
Thank You councillor stove that you do the record. Oh, yeah councillor of me councillor wearing
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:00:41
Of course councillor wearing as well. Thank you very much
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:00:44
Travelling on work abroad. Do we have any declarations of interest is item two?

2 Declarations of Interest

councillor ever me
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:00:54
Thank You chair
My declaration is in relation to an agenda item 10,
Treasury Out -turn Report 25 -26.
I wish to make the following declaration.
I am appointed by the Local Government Association
to be a member of the Board of Trustees
of the Local Authority Municipal Investment Trust, LAMIT,
which was one of the three shareholders in CCLA
until its sale to Jupiter Fund Management PLC
in February, 2026.
Lamet is also the custodian of the local authorities property fund shown in the
report as the CCLA property fund. This position is not repunerated, it's not
precuniary and therefore I feel that it's not in a conflict of the discussion
that we had have this evening so I will remain in the meeting to and take part
in the discussion. Thank you Councillor Evermy and of course if anybody feels
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:01:50
and the interest has arisen during the meeting, then please declare it at that
time. So we'll go on to the minutes now. I'd like to confirm the minutes of the following

3 Minutes

meetings, we've got the 15th of July 2026 and the 12th of August 2026. I've noticed a
couple of things, if I might, which I don't have right in front of me, but we
doing the leaders, sorry, just to promote myself, during the chair's
announcements. I think I introduced Mimi Johnson, Johnston and it's Johnston with
a T and the other item was when Councillor, Councillor Pedogram spoke
about, she mentioned, it says in the minutes that she mentioned St. Peter's
Road but she didn't, she mentioned the steadings. I think page 34, thank you for that.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:02:47
and Councillor Inge. Yes just I'm assuming a typing error on page 25
first paragraph and the date says the meeting would be adjourned till the 13th
of August 2020 I think it was 2026. Thank you very much for that it's good
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:03:06
attention to detail but that's it so will is everybody happy to accept those
minutes and vote on them as with those with the amendments but are you voting
or you? No will we vote for them separately because I have to abstain from one.
Of course yeah okay so let's go first on the 15th July meeting oh sorry
Councillor. I think you might be looking for a proposer for them. Oh yeah yeah I am. I
am I'm just ahead of myself I was going to do that afterwards and then Councillor Stone
will second it so thank you thank you for both of those so should we go to the
vote on the first one, the 16th? 15th even, 15th of July, not my bad. 15th of July,
yeah, so that's 26 and two abstentions that's 28 so I think that's good isn't it?
We're good thank you very much everybody. Okay that's carried and then we'll now
go if we have a proposal for the 12th of August, Councillor Eberly in a second
Thank you.
And we'll get to vote on that.
Excellent.
Yeah, 29 this time.
I don't know who we missed, but okay.
Thank you.
Good.
Are we all in?
Yeah.
Good.
Right.
Thank you very much.
That's agreed.
Okay, we've now got announcements from the chair, leader, chief executive, and I've got

4 Announcements from the Chair, Leader or Chief Executive

a just a couple of quick announcements just to let you know that the County
Council's publishing its local transport plan which I encourage you all to go
through the various several hundred pages and have a look at it. It goes
through to 2043 and feel free to input on that. The second item is Sire and
Chester Hospital has got a consultation running at the moment about it.
It's a little bit tight windows. The 29th of December from 5
till 7 p .m. and then 8th of October from 10 till 12 in two drop -in sessions. So
it's a sort of, sorry, of October 29th of September 8th of October. So I would
encourage people to get along to those if they can. I've also been asked by a
member of the Civic Society who's, Councillor Fowle's over there, to thank the
District Council for opening up the various buildings that we own as part of
the Heritage Open Days in Syrins Esther and so official thanks from the Civic
Society to the District Council for doing that. It was a great success. Also
I'd like to congratulate Councillor Paul Evans on his appointment as CDC elected
representative on Gloucester Health and Wellbeing Board. Congratulations. He joins
Angela Claret, our monitoring officer representing CDC. So I'm sure he
represents as well, Councillor Evans. And just the usual stuff to maximise the use
of available time. If we could all be disciplined in our comments, avoid
repetition and be succinct. And this meeting will be capped for four hours and
three hours have elapsed if we get to that point we'll take a vote on whether
to continue for the final hour noting that some people probably want to get up
quite early tomorrow morning various reasons any announcements from the
leader councillor have me thank you chair yeah I've got three things that I wanted
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:06:48
to say to council this evening the first one is about the pause for that brackets
on local government reorganisation.
So I think the chief executive and I
were actually in discussion on the day,
I think on the 7th of September.
And when this came through,
rumours of it started to percolate
that the decision that we thought we had
was now being paused.
And that was, I think across the local government sector,
was very unexpected and I don't really want to go into the speculating of why the
government has done that. I think what we're trying to do is trying to deal
with the consequences or we are dealing with the consequences of that. Obviously
I'm hoping that that pause will only be short at least in terms of for us here
in Gloucestershire but just to I guess tell members that obviously there during
that week there were a lot of meetings that Jane and I and Lisa as the leader
of the County Council attended together with our other leaders and chief
executives to establish what was happening. Jane and I attended a web
meeting the following morning with the Minister, Jim McMahon and we tried to
obviously what we've been doing through this period is understanding more about
the decision to pause and what the implications of that are. And officers have been working across
the county collaboratively and checking in with us as leaders on that. To which end they are actually
meeting civil servants face to face tomorrow. They're coming to Gloucestershire to meet with
our chief executives and then they will be briefing leaders, the chief executives will be on Friday.
So I think we're all in a situation at the moment where there's a lot of uncertainty
and we totally recognise the uncertainty that's created for our staff in terms of, you know,
who thought that the councils, as we all did, were going to come to an end in March 2028.
And that may still be the case, but it might not.
And also, you know, obviously it has an impact on all of us here because our terms of office
looked like they were going to be extended by a year and it now looks like they won't
be. So, and as the government has made clear that we will be holding elections for this
council next May, which we weren't expecting. And obviously our offices are working hard
on preparing for those elections. As I stand here, the scope and the timing of the review
is unclear. There were a lot of questions that were asked that weren't able, they weren't
able to answer. But we are, I can tell you, we are expecting a statement in the house
on the 12th of October. How much more information that gives? I don't know any more than any
of you in this room, but we hope that it will give us some clarity, at least on the timetable
that the government is now going to follow. And so there's been a lot of speculation about
which decisions might come when and all of that. But I say I can't give you any more
information because we don't know. As you'll see in one of the answers to the question
from Councillor Cunningham. We are obviously looking at the costs of this
and there will be costs of pausing the decision and particularly if there's a
delay of at least a year. Our budgets, our understanding is are built on
assumptions of the fact that we wouldn't be here for the 28 -29 year and the
government funding therefore consequential on that. So you will note
on the agenda as well that there was item, good to be item 9, about forming a
Joint Committee we're obviously not now going to do that because we don't have
clarity about what the outcome is for Gloucestershire and so that item is
withdrawn as it was from the in the cabinet papers where it was actually
published and then not taken forward. The other major change I wanted to let
people know about is the extension to the public consultation period for our
plan regulation 19 consultation so we decided to extend that by a further four
weeks so it will now run up until the 3rd of November 2026 that will give
residents and stakeholders more time to make their consultation responses and it
will enable full six -week period of consideration for the regulation 18
comments which have now been published which was an oversight that they weren't
published at the same time as the rest of the papers were at the in on the 24th
of August. So I know members have all had the information about that and we've
written to all town and parish councils about that and we will also be to assure
members writing directly to anyone who's already made a submission telling them
that if they wanted to that that extra information had been published and if
they wanted to change this submission,
that's totally within there.
They can do that on basis of having seen
those Regulation 18 consultation recommendations.
Just the last thing I wanted to say,
and members maybe recall we had a debate earlier in the year
about food and farming and how that was going to work
under LGR, we were due to have a report come to us
this evening, but unfortunately that was another casualty
of the pause because when I read the report and the chief executive and I read it we thought
actually we don't know lots of this now because LGR is being paused. At the time the report
was written we thought we were going to a single unitary council for Gloucestershire.
To reassure members there is still work going on and no one else is involved in some of
that at the county level. But I thought it was better to have a report, hopefully we'll
be able to bring that back to our next meeting when hopefully we might have some certainty
around LGR and we can have a better more informed debate on that at our next
meeting. Thank you chair. Thank you very much.

5 Public Questions

Councillor Mark Harris - 0:13:08
Lida, any announcements from the CEO? No.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:13:19
Now to go to public questions and it doesn't look to me like we have many
members of the public here unless they're hiding. So we'll then move to member

6 Member Questions

questions. We've got 15 minutes for this. So and these will be these have been
submitted, we'll respond to them in the order in which they've been submitted. So
I think the first question is from Councillor Julie Judd and she's talking about fly
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:13:52
tipping I think. So Julia. Thank you very much for your response. You can understand
from my point of view being in a rural ward, I am constantly, constantly troubled by Gliderhith,
which is coming out of Cheltenham in Gloucester. So the national picture does not apply to
the Cotswolds.
We are particularly vulnerable with our deep
valleys and our little tiny roads and our hidden
secret places.
And only this week, our flight officer has actually
caught a builder who has left a dump of rubble in
Sandywell Road.
It's not in my ward in Patcheson, it's in
Sandywell.
And they caught the builder because they found
evidence, went back to the woman's house who had
the building materials.
Could we get to the question Julia, please?
I'm just trying to say this is a problem.
This is a serious problem.
So my follow up question, please.
It's obviously a County Council policy,
but please could the cabinet member
seek an urgent discussion with the
Gloucester County Council to ensure that the potential
financial, environmental and enforcement impacts
on Cotswold district are properly assessed.
And importantly, that Cotswold residents
are not left to pick up the cost of dealing
with additional flight tipping as a result
from a county council charging policy.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:15:38
Council Bellagran.
Thank you, thank you, Councillor Judd.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 0:15:42
I absolutely understand your concerns.
I would like to allay them if possible.
So people will still be able to bring DIY waste
to the household recycling centres.
This is for excess waste and they can, I'm sorry,
I haven't, I've got here if you wish to see it,
a leaflet provided to me as a county counsellor
which I will show you.
But the charges are actually quite minimal.
They're not extensive.
There's a lot of waste that can be delivered, I think,
two bags a week anyway, which is quite a lot.
So this is really just to discourage the larger loads,
which I think should probably be quite uncommon.
As an authority that's responsible for eco -waste
and eco -crime, I hope you know that we do take
it very seriously. We've done very stop and search events. We've done media campaigns.
So we've tried very hard to get the message out to people who are hiring people to take
their waste away that they really should see their waste carriers licence. We have a very
diligent team here, as you've just explained, who are very successful. So I really hope
that it's, I would like to reassure you that it's not going to be a problem. If it is a
then obviously we will immediately take action and you can write to me you have
done so in the past please continue to do so and we will deal with it as
quickly as possible but I don't think it's going to be a problem thank you
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:17:29
thank you very much council perogram next question is from council David
Cunningham on LGR finance and costs you have a supplementary I do miss chairman
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:17:40
I'd like to thank the cabinet member for the answer and to thank the Brighton supporters
club for the details.
As the leader has already pointed out, I think it is unfortunate that we have had to already
spend as much money as we have on project IFFI, but that's out of our control.
I would ask, will the cabinet member commit to using next week's review as stated by the
CEO to provide a line by line breakdown of our costs, clarify what oversight we have
on the monies already sent to county to ensure that we know exactly how those monies are
being spent?
And will you also reassure members that the balance of the £2 million reserve is now
frozen and that it will not be used for any other purposes until we get clarity from the
Numpities in Westminster?
Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:18:47
Thank you very much David, sorry, Councillor Cunningham for your four questions and thank
you very much for your four supplementary questions although I hate
to break the habit of a lifetime on this occasion I'm not going to plunge in and
try and answer those four off the cuff I'm going to supply you with four written
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:19:15
answers thank you thank you very much council Coleman and the next question is
from council Stowe to council every about the printing of Cotswold
Councillor Tom Stowe - 0:19:26
together. Yes, thank you chair and thank you councillor Evermy for your response.
Members will recall the extraordinary council meeting held on August 12th to
decide the fate of the district. Little did we know that when that meeting was
held, Royal Mail were already holding printed magazines hailing the outcome of
that very meeting, stating a defining moment for the Cotswolds and the local
plan is now the council's considered view. We're aware of this council's
Substantial communications budget, but now it seems that they've managed to stretch that to the use of a time machine
Does council ever me agree with me that this is the latest demonstration of how the democratic process behind this plan?
Which is drawn at behind closed doors is a total illusion
Particularly when material presenting the council's considered view was printed and ready for distribution
Before the meeting in which that view was supposedly reached
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:20:16
No, I don't agree with you
so
So clearly, obviously, the Regulation 19 consultation was due to start on the 24th of August.
We had to make plans for that.
We booked venues for the exhibition halls.
And one of the key things was to be able to communicate about the consultation with residents.
And actually, we got some criticism in Regulation 18 that the consultation, I think the Cotswolds
together went out in the second week of the consultation.
So we wanted to make sure that that went out in advance of the consultation, or at least
in the week that it started.
So clearly our communications team were working on that basis.
There are print deadlines.
There are in terms they had to work towards.
And as members will know, because hopefully we've all received it
through our door, we didn't have details in terms of some
of the sites and stuff like that.
That wasn't in there.
But I will remind members that in the July
of last year there was a unanimous vote in this council
to go ahead and update our local plan.
There is a majority of members of this council of 10 who support the administration.
The cabinet was moving this forward.
So officers will reasonably work with the assumption that that was going to pass this
council and indeed it did pass this council with a majority of six.
So there was, they had put a contingency in place.
They were ready to essentially pull it if this council decided that it didn't agree
with the cabinet proposal, but the council did decide and residents were informed and
And they are now taking part in our consultation.
And I think that's an excellent example of good communications.
You have to plan communications often in advance of a decision, but you have to think about
how that works and make sure that actually when there's a high degree of certainty, which
there was a pretty high degree of certainty, that was we went ahead with that.
And I think that's proven by the quality and the map we managed to get that out in advance
or very early in the consultation.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:22:16
Thank you very much Councillor Ebony and we've got Councillor Len Wilkins is not
here so we'll go to Councillor Laura Hall -Wilson who wants to ask the leader
a question on asylum accommodation.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:22:27
Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson - 0:22:30
You have a supplementary. Thank you yes and thank you very much for your
response and I appreciate the sensitivities about what you are allowed
to share but since submitting my question the Prime Minister has doubled
down on his full dispersal model this issue comes up time and time and again
on the doorstep and those involved in local elections will know that for 92 % of residents
in Piddington to turn up recently for referendum to leave the United Kingdom, that's an incredible
turnout and indicates the strength of feeling. We have a proud record of supporting refugees
in the United Kingdom and I'm pleased that you highlighted that the Cotswolds have taken
on people from the Ukraine and under the Afghan resettlement schemes. But overwhelmingly those
coming now in boats are not coming under those schemes. In 2025 alone more than
35 ,000 made the crossing and on arrival 95 % of those claimed asylum. Adult men
over the age of 18 formed... Can we get to a question because this is more grandstanding.
I know it's not what some people want to hear but we want to hear a question if
we could Laura. Okay well I just want to frame the picture about the risk to
women and girls and I want to ask... I think a lot of us have had that picture painted for us
by all sorts of people.
Could you get your question please, Laura?
What I would like to do is ask the council
what they will do to push back against any plan
to house illegal migrants here
and to keep women and girls safe.
If you want to turn your mic off, Laura,
please say it.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:23:57
Good, thank you.
I think I said in the answer to the question
that we do have a proud record of taking people here
who are refugees.
and I don't use the language that the opposition member uses there and I think
it's wrong to start scaring people about people who come to this country and
whether they are where they are located clearly isn't a matter for us. I accept
that the Prime Minister says he wants to see that more evenly spread across the
country than it is at the moment. What I would say is there are good reasons
why people are located in certain places who've come to this country is because
they are able to get more support in the larger settlements and it's why we don't
have accommodation at the moment in my understanding for people who come who
are asylum seekers. But clearly I think what we have a responsibility as a
council to do is to work with the Home Office where they tell us but it's not
our decision, it's their decision where to put people and we have a
responsibility I think as leaders in our communities to reassure, to work to
reassure our communities to build community spirit and not to seek to
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:25:17
divide people. Thank you very much Councillor Ebony. The scared and divided
people are never going to flourish and grow as I think we all want to do. Next
question for Councillor Daryl Corfe, for Councillor Juliet Layton regarding
houses and working from not working from home places to work from and do you
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:25:36
have a supplementary down yes sure I do thank you firstly thank you very much
can't later for your and for your response but it does it is a bit
worrying that it also appears to confirm the problem rather than and solve it
obviously the council is proposing more than 2 ,000 new homes additional homes in
Morton yet it hasn't allocated any corresponding employment land and you
I understand residents are concerned that where are these additional thousands of people
going to be working?
Are they really expected to be commuting miles away from where they live?
Basically, why aren't we actually allocating any employment land in one of the biggest
potential development sites in the district?
Thank you.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:26:23
Well I think the answer kind of gives us that. We've consulted with Isini, as you know,
who are on employment land review and so all that detail is online.
As developments come forward and we get people coming in, I can pretty much
guarantee you're going to get employers coming in because they will know that
there is a workforce. So that happens slowly and as you know with the local
plan that we are not rushing in and building a thousand houses a year, we are
doing that as a trajectory and we're building slowly. So I can't answer
further than that because it's a land issue, you know, about ownership and
things of that nature that I can't answer, which is a little bit like the
question that's further on but employment will come when we have people
to be employed and I suspect there be a lot of people in Moreton who are already
not living and working solely in Moreton. They will be moving out to go to other
places of employment and there'll be people coming into Moreton for places of
employment as well. So employers will come when we've got people to work for them.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:27:47
Thank you very much Councillor Layton. Okay next one is for Councillor Bloomfield
to Councillor Efremi on road signs. Do you have a supplementary? Yes Chair, thank
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:28:01
you I do and thank you Councillor Efremi for your answer and I was of course
aware that this is very much a matter for gloss highways. Tim Atkins who's the
CDC officer liaising with the Lost Highways on this matter has helpfully asked me to share
with him photographs and sites of where there are outstanding problems and I'll certainly
do so and I'd recommend anybody who's got any signs which need repair please let them
know or put it on Fix My Street, it's another way of doing it. It is however a problem frequently
raised by town and parish councils who struggle to get their signs repaired and there is a
reference in the answer to the Fosse Way and saying that was prioritised by Gloss Highways.
On my way here, the roundabout where we crossed the A40, there's a panel missing and it's
been missing for about four or five years on the road sign there. The centre of the
roundabout is completely, the signs were all crushed on that.
I also want to also mention that at Trafalgar Crossroads, one of the signs has been altered.
It's a stop sign and it's been altered to say, I'll never stop loving you.
So I thought I had to add that, but it has been desecrated by somebody.
My supplementary question is, is how best can CDC put pressure on gloss highways to
ensure these road signs across the district are fit for purpose?
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:29:28
Councillor Elnany.
Thank you.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:29:31
Well, this is a responsibility of Gloucestershire County Council.
We have the cabinet member for highways sat in the chair.
We have the leader sat behind us.
We have another cabinet member Paul sat over there.
And there is another place for people to ask those questions, except not those all of us
in this room.
Some of us in this room are members of the county council.
Power and Parish Councils have county councillors who can raise this on their behalf.
So I don't go around saying this job should do the job of asking the County
Council to do its job. I think as we as councillors, parish and town councillors,
you will have a County Councillor, you know, you can contact them, but more
easily if you've got the problems that you described that's what Fix My Street
is there for. So I think we should just reflect on the fact that we are not the
County Council. There is another body, sovereign body in this county that
with highways and there are opportunities to question that council
when it meets and so I don't intend to give any assurance that I'm going to do
stuff on someone else's responsibility. People who have sat in the room they've
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:30:39
heard what you had to say. Look forward to hearing your question of the County
Council soon. Right next question is again from Councillor Daryl Corr to
Councillor Layton about Morton in Marsh and do you have a supplementary, Darryl?
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:30:56
Yes, Joe, I do. Thank you very much and again thank you Juliet for your
response to my question. It is quite extraordinary isn't it that we were both
in that meeting when when we saw the map being published by the Cotswold
District Council showing land for potential development and it was
questioned by a landowner in the room that he hadn't actually put any land forward.
So, and the council can't, can it currently confirm whether all
of the land was actually put forward
by the relevant landowners or not?
You know, this really isn't a minor, minor point, is it?
Darryl, I looked away for a minute and I looked up
and we still haven't arrived at a question.
So, could you get to your question, please?
Sorry, it takes me a bit of time, isn't it, occasionally.
So, basically I'm asking, is this one of these,
this reason that the inaccuracy that we're delaying the consultation out to
the third November because there's so many inaccuracies in there that need to
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:31:59
be corrected? Absolutely not. That is not the reason why
you've just been told the reason why we're extending that time. I was in that
meeting but looking at your question and thinking of the members of public who
might read this it's a very obscure thing they would have no idea really
what what or where you would were referring to about that piece of land
there was a question and the there was an indication from somebody about had we
been gifted you know was this the landowner who'd actually put this
forward. We don't know whether there was no proof that he was a landowner. I don't
know who that person was but I do know that every bit of land that is
being put forward in Reg 18 and subsequently after Reg 18 all those 200
sites were put forward by landowners or their agents. We're not plucking out and
looking at the shape on a map like our speculative developers are and saying oh
we fancy that bit for now we'll drop in and make an offer. We are not doing that.
So all the land that we have been looking at has been put forward by
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:33:25
landowners or agents. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Layton. That's the
questions out of the way unless I've missed anybody which I don't think I

7 Constitution Working Group Recommendations- National Scheme of Delegation (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions Regulations 2026)

have. So that's good. Okay item 7. Constitutional working group
recommendations. This is going to be presented by Mike Evans to present
recommendations Constitution working group in relation to legal changes
required to the council constitution. So you're going to explain to us why we
have to make these changes legally. Thank you. Thank you chair and this isn't a
Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:33:59
report that I want to present. I think it's fair to say and I think the idea of
national scheme of delegation is one which is wholly unnecessary but this is
something which the government has pushed through Parliament despite I know
very vociferous opposition from members of my party in the House of Commons and
in the House of Lords and I think also from members of the party represented
opposite but it will become the law of the land on the 31st of October so we
as a public body have to make sure that all the decisions
that we make within our planning committees
and within our planning responsibilities are legal
and defendable.
And that is therefore why we have this report in front
of us this evening.
We had two meetings of the Constitution Working Group
to consider this report and went
through in detail what the national scheme
of delegation means, what it meant, and how we can adapt it for our purposes.
So we obviously, there was also a meeting of the Planning and Licencing Committee and
Dyliss, Councillor Neill will be seconding this and she may well want to refer to the
discussions at the Planning and Licencing Committee.
It's clear and I'm sure that most, if not all members will not wish us to be making
this decision. But as I said, we have a legal obligation to accord our scheme to incorporate
the national scheme of delegation. And there will be two new types of applications. So
there'll be Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. And Schedule 1 applications will be automatically
delegated to officers. That will be for household or extensions and residential schemes of up
and nine homes.
And then Schedule 2, which there will be a presumption
in favour of officer delegations for larger
or sensitive developments, including major projects
and listed building consents.
And essentially, the new process for referring to the Planning
and Licencing Committee will be called the Gateway Test.
And that will be considered by one member
of the planning committee and normally the chair and a nominated planning officer to
mutually agree that local significance or a major planning issue requires it to be determined
by the planning and licencing committee. Applications for listed building consent or to vary discharge
conditions will be under schedule two. And applications by members or officers own interest
applications will automatically be referred to the Gateway review meeting, but they won't
automatically go to the committee as they do now.
So what we've done is we've revised the planning protocol to update based on those changes.
We have made a small change, so hopefully this will be of benefit to members.
Some of us may have struggled.
I certainly have to find the referral port on the planning, on the members portal.
We're not requiring people to use the referral form anymore.
They will just need to send an email to cdc .planningreviewportal .gov .uk.
So you'll get that in an email.
And yeah, we obviously encourage members to engage with planning officers at an early
stage if they've any queries regarding an application.
And as you'll see in answer to Councillor Wilkins' question, we didn't consider ward
members if you want to make representations, you could do it through the portal and it
will be shown as the ward members view.
What we also got to do is essentially
we can no longer refer any decisions up to the council.
So our previous protocol had,
if the planning and licencing committee couldn't decide,
could refer to the council.
So we're now saying that the chair
of the planning licencing committee would have a second
or casting vote in the event of a tie by the committee.
That's how we do other meetings,
but so we can't do that anymore with referring to council.
As well as implementing the new provisions,
non -exec officer scheme of delegation
covers rights of way and highways,
trees and forestry, including tree preservation,
tree replacement orders,
and planning enforcement powers
have now been brought together
on enforcement of planning control.
There will be a member briefing on these changes
as they come in on the 31st of October.
We've all been invited to those.
I think they're in our calendars already, not just people on the Planning and Licencing Committee.
And for those on the committee or anyone wanting to sit on the committee,
you have to get training on it at least once a year.
And we're going to update Pound and Parish Councils at future events on that.
So I will, with that, move the recommendations as they are on page 37 of the agenda.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:39:06
Before I go to, I'd like to take a seconder.
Does anybody have any questions?
And this is not questions on how we're going to operate and so on,
but this is questions on do they misunderstand what is going on.
You can talk in debate.
We're clear on what's being said.
Good. Okay.
So can I have a seconder, please, for?
We're coming to that.
I just said that, David.
Do you?
Councillor Neill.
Yes.
Councillor Neill.
Yes. Do you want to speak now or have a hold?
I think I speak now because I think a lot of what people are going to say is
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:39:40
something I'm going to say already, which will shorten the debate hopefully. So
it's very useful to be updated from time to time on the enormous scope of
planning and enforcement legislation and to be reminded of the role of officers,
board members and the Planning Committee. So it's quite, the report is useful from
that respect. So I've been a member of the Planning Committee since I was first
elected ten years ago and when I started we routinely have eight or ten
applications submitted by ward members who wanted to challenge the officer's
recommendations often for relatively trivial reasons. So for example, oh well
a lot of people have objected, my parish council doesn't like it and
sometimes even because a friend had asked a member to bring an application
to committee, so these were relatively trivial reasons, we would start at 10 a .m.
break for lunch and routinely finish around four.
But some years ago we introduced the review panel
which scrutinises referrals from ward members as you know
and only allows those controversial applications
where there is a sound planning reason
for a challenge to be brought to committee.
So this was not welcomed by everyone at first
but it has certainly streamlined the process.
So members are now very well informed
and therefore much more disciplined in submitting applications for consideration. Far fewer
challenges come from ward members now and triaged by the review panel reduces the number
still further that actually come to committee. So over the last year I had to look back through
the last few planning committees, only about eight or ten applications submitted by ward
members were actually considered by the planning committee. So it's clear that our current
system is not causing a significant delay within the planning process. In the
very few cases where we've refused permission when the officer was
recommending permit, this is only four or five cases over the last year, or we
asked for a deferral for a site inspection briefing, for a deferral
either for a site inspection briefing or to hear more evidence, three or four
times, events have usually shown that the committee decision was correct and if I
can give examples if requested but it would take me a long time to read off
the list. And of course we sometimes approve permission for applications for
which the officer has recommended refusal. So we discussed the government's
new legislation at the last planning committee and I'm going to quote
verbatim from the agenda report which you can find on page 42. So this is what
it says reporting our committee debate. Members recognised that the
council had no choice but to implement the new scheme. Committee members who
attended were unanimous in expressing disappointment as other changes as they
failed to recognise the important role of members in planning decision -making.
So it was clear that the government believed that local authority planning committees were
holding up new development applications and steps needed to be taken up to speed up the
decision making process. Members did not believe this was true and I've shown you that it isn't
true. And examples were given where the very opposite was true. The professional role of
planning officers in providing technical advice on planning applications was acknowledged
by the committee, but they believed that members provided a local insight and gave democratic
legitimacy to the decision -making process. The current process provides reassurance to
members of the public and they could see that all the pros and cons of an application had
been considered, even if the outcome was not necessarily one that they wanted. So those
last two paragraphs are in your agenda. So we have no choice but to comply with this
new legislation and the constitution working group have come up with a necessary plan which
we're going to have to endorse. However, I do believe that this district council should
put on record that we do not think that this is a good law, we do not think that it's a
good way to proceed. So this government, this current government talks about the need to
devolve more power to the regions to allow local people to make local decisions and this
This has absolutely the opposite effect.
Central Government is significantly clamping down on our ability to make good local planning
decisions.
I also know that Cotswold residents, at least in my ward, already believe that nobody pays
attention to the comments they make on the planning portal.
They will become even more disenchanted with the planning process as an important channel
for them to use their local knowledge and to make their voice heard will have
been removed. So it's with a very heavy heart that I second this motion.
Right I've got Councillor Stowe first then Councillor Fowles then Councillor
Layton. Thank you chair and thank you Councillor Neill for having my speech.
that's very useful, you've done an excellent job.
So, I mean, all I'm going to say really is echo exactly what
Councilman has said.
Councillor Tom Stowe - 0:45:07
I'm here to represent the best interests of the residents
of Camden Vale Ward and of the wider district.
And I do not believe that reducing the ability
of locally elected members
to scrutinise planning decisions strengthens local democracy.
In fact, it risks creating a local democratic deficit.
Unfortunately, this is a national requirement
and that the council is being told it must implement
these changes.
But there is a difference between acknowledging
that we have to implement something
and pretending that we have to support it.
I cannot vote in favour of a measure
that further removes planning decisions
from local democratic scrutiny,
and therefore I'll be abstaining
and I urge colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Councillor Lueb.
Stow, short and sweet, thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:45:46
Councillor Fowles.
Thanks, Chair.
Mine's even shorter and perhaps not as sweet.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:45:51
I'd like to congratulate the officer
who drafted this report,
because I was at that planning meeting
and the language that was used was beautifully sanitised because as far as I was concerned,
central government should keep their noses out of local democracy and that was echoed in our
meeting. And I think the important point is articulated in 6 .3, which is often you get
planning decisions or planning applications that are very divisive in communities and the
opportunity to take it to committee and to have the thing debated with the input
of officers in a democratic environment often heals even if the decision is one
that doesn't support the views of the local residents or the parish council. I
would not have used the words that Councillor Neill used saying that if a
parish council or residents feel that something is they have concerns that it
is it is trivial I think it's really really important and echo exactly what
Councillor Stowe has said I think it's an intrusion and the sooner this
government goes the better and I too will be abstaining thank you
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:47:07
Thank You councillor Fowles councillor Layton then councillor Haynes. Thank you very much
well I have a two small amendments which are about on the Annex A1 which is the
committee protocol. So, sorry, page 52 is the first one which is about site inspection
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:47:32
briefings. It's the penultimate paragraph and it's simply moving a sentence down to
make it make sense. It says, site inspections can be called for by the case officer in advance
of committee meeting and in certain circumstances the committee can vote on a proposal made
by a committee member for an item to be deferred for a site's inspection briefing. And I've
asked that the final sentence there is moved up to that place which says members need to
be aware that this would delay decision making and such a proposal should not be made lightly.
and the following sentence at the end of that would be members may also request
advanced site inspection briefing through the Gateway request which will
be considered at the Gateway review meeting. So I'm just moving the bottom
sentence up one to match the committee area and the other one is on page 42 and
really very very small. It's the final bullet where members and officers
attending a site inspection briefing are expected to arrive on time, remain with
the visiting group and dress appropriately for the site conditions
including suitable footwear and I've asked them to add which we should be
doing and council issue high -vis vests. That's on page 53 bullet 3 yes so just
two really simple amendments but we're voting on something on our protocol so
it needs to be known rather than adjusted later. Thank you. Thank you
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:49:12
Councillor Layton and Councillor Inge. Thank you chair. Yes following the planning
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:49:18
meeting I had a conversation with a resident regarding the process. They are
clearly not very happy with it for all the same reasons that we've talked about
the fact that residents won't feel that their voices are going to be heard. They
made a suggestion and I don't know whether this would fit in legally with
it or whether it's something the Constitution Working Group could look
at in the future but during a schedule 2 meeting would there be an opportunity
for the ward councillor to be present at that meeting to answer any questions or
listen to the discussion but not be there for the decision come away from
the decision in a way so that at least even if the decision went against what
they wanted the resident would feel that their ward councillor had been present.
Thank you. Thank you very much for that and we've got councillor Paul Evans next.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:50:11
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:50:13
Thank you chair. I'll keep my comments very sweet there's two of them I'd like
to make. Firstly I'll say what I said at planning, the planning committee meeting
is that all we hear from central government is devolution, devolution,
devolution and yet we're faced with this that takes power away from local
communities to make decisions that impact every single day. My second point
is I think we'd all love to abstain on this, I think we really would, but to do
so and to not pass this would put this council in a very difficult position and
to me that would be an abrogation of responsibility and leadership. So
reluctantly I will support this I hope colleagues will also as well so I'm not
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:51:03
the only one thank you if you were the only one
cancer over me it would still pass because everyone else would have
abstained so just draw that councillor Neil again yes I just want to
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:13
start up because I was named by councillor Fouse and I entirely agree with
him I used a word which was inappropriate I said trivial no no no
That's fine.
I didn't mean trivial.
I mean, often our planning,
often our town and council planning committees
or our town and council councillors
come up with a reason that they don't like an application,
but it isn't what we'd call a sound planning reason.
And I should have perhaps used that explanation
rather than using the word trivial
because I entirely agree with Councillor Fowles.
Our local councils, you know, they know their area
and any objection they have is not trivial,
but it may not have a sound planning reason behind it.
It may not be a material planning consideration.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:51:54
Still got it.
Julia, Councillor Jug, sorry.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:52:00
I just think this is an absolute blatant erosion of democracy.
The planning committee is the one place where our residents can see us working absolutely
on their behalf and it is shocking and hurtful to them that we can't do that.
to me personally having been on the planning committee since scratch, it is one of the most
visible and important roles that I play and I'm passionate about it because it is about the people
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:52:39
I represent. Yeah, I agree. I was on planning, as you know, for a long time and you found out what
was going on in the council and also with other members and so on. It's a great shame.
So, Councillor Spivey.
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:52:51
Lovely, thank you. It's a really interesting debate and really important to hear what we're
all feeling. I think actually there's collectively this great, great frustration. And I spoke
about this at conference on Saturday, about this huge disconnect between central government
and local government and how we are striving every single day to try to do, as Councillor Judd has just said,
to really represent our communities, just as Councillor Inda said, to really make sure that that voice of local people is heard,
that our residents, it seems to be, as Councillor Farrell said, that we're just erosion of democracy.
We talk about devolution, but it's not really happening. How is this devolution coming down to local councils?
You know, this just seems to be yet another way where our power is being taken away from
us.
And yes, you know, sometimes we have had things which aren't material planning reasons and
then can seem to have taken up time.
But I think in this council actually we've taken a very mature approach to that.
And over the last few years under Liberal Democrat administrations, we've really worked
incredibly hard at making sure that our planning committee absolutely is sound and that we
are making very good sound decisions because that is important that we don't just have
planning decisions which are based because somebody doesn't like something, but that
is based in the legislation and in local plans. So I think we have done a really great job
here in order to ensure that we have got robust decision -making, that there isn't any legal
challenge that can be made afterwards which could result in this council having to pay
cost. So I think it's, you know, in areas like this where we have taken a mature approach
to dealing with our planning applications, it is very, very sad to see that we are having
yet again more power taken away from us. And absolutely, I totally agree with everybody
who's spoken around that voice of local residents being taken away. It is, yeah, it's really,
really sad to see this. And I, you know, I know that I hope that we can make this loud
and clear this argument to government, although as Councillor Evans has just pointed out,
it does feel that it is something that we have to do. It is the law, there we are. I
would like to put on record my frustration and dissatisfaction with having to vote for
this, but I think we are having to do it, but we should put on record our deep, deep
frustration with government that we are being essentially, powers taking away from us and
this is not devolution at all. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Spivey. It does seem
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:55:29
that devolution depends on where you're sitting. If you're sitting as an MP it
all goes down to a massive strategic authority and if you're anywhere below
that strategic authority it's all going up and away from you. That's the way it
feels to me at any rate. Sorry, just funny. I think I've got Patrick, Councillor Coleman
and I think, did you want to speak again Councillor Evans? Okay.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:55:59
Thank you, I realise that despite having sat through this debate and read this document
and been on the working party, it is not entirely clear to me what has happened to the definition
of a major application. Of the very small number of applications that as Councillor
Neill said come before our committee these days, an average that doesn't always reach
three over a year, three per meeting, quite often it is something defined as a major application.
and I just realised I couldn't recall any particular discussion on that.
And in passing, can I also say that whilst I agree with the criticisms being made,
in fact because we've already reformed our procedures to get rid of some
of the dreadful things used to happen in the old days where a particular councillor now longer
on this council would say to officers, well, you know, give us some reasons
and write them down for me, I want you to go to committee.
We've improved a lot since those days.
And I suspect therefore that in practise, and perhaps I hope, that it will prove not
to be that different from what we've been doing up to now because we've carried out
the reforms that are now being imposed to a very large extent already.
But I agree with those who criticised, and I do think these go too far.
But I was just thinking, will we automatically have major applications?
Because sometimes those are ones we allow, particularly the 100 metre long barn in the
AOMB which we agreed unanimously against offers of recommendations.
Thank you Councillor Coleman. I think Councillor Evans do you have something you wanted to?
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:57:27
Yeah I believe that the amendments that Councillor Layton has proposed need a second.
I'm happy to do that.
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:57:32
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:57:35
Thank you very much for straightening out my administrative procedure and I appreciate that.
Yeah I think the only thing I would add, and I know I've been interjecting,
sorry Councillor Bloomfield I'll come to you in two seconds, yeah, just my own part.
I try my best when the planning applications in my ward come forward.
I try to see where possible if I can make a comment on the portal.
So it might, the comment might be, you know, I haven't had any residents speak to me about this,
or it might be, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be a planning consideration.
But that is a way that you can get your name onto a planning application, and so on and so forth,
by the portal, so I'd highly recommend it when applications come through.
The only thing is when people complain about it after you've made the comment, but I suggest
doing that.
Councillor Bloomfield.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Well, I have got the disquiet that everybody has here, and it's all came out of the blue.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:58:28
It seems to be a huge change.
What I was wondering about is one of the things which, when it went to Planning Committee,
they often put conditions on things, and actually putting conditions on, and that is when the
ward member, the other people, can really make an impact.
How are we going to be dealing with that?
I really think that that is something.
At the moment, there is a concern,
enforcement having been rather stretched and things,
that people are going to feel in this, with this sort
of open door, getting away with planning applications
which really are not appropriate.
And I'm just wondering how
about the conditions can be done.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's a really good question.
My view is it's probably going to take up more officers' time
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:59:10
because we're going to be lobbying officers directly
on an application and asking for things
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:59:16
to be put in. Councillor Caul. Yeah thank you chair and I'm gonna echo what
everyone else has been saying but I mean it doesn't seem like reform to me this
seems like eroding our roles in our communities. As the people have said it's
one of the biggest things that we we hear from residents alongside potholes
as a County Councillor. Also I think also when you look at the reforms and a
member and an officer are going to be working together on this. The officer
will surely be, and no fault of their own, will be predetermined in their opinion
on that planning application. That's something of current situation is as
members of the Planning Committee we can't go into the meeting with that
predetermination. It just seemed a bit of a very strange, it's more of a question
of how that how that dynamic will work and opposed to criticising it.
It's very interesting, we'd love to hear more about that. That's a really good
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:00:07
question. I don't think it's probably one we can answer because this is being
imposed on us but I think maybe we should make representations to our
various MPs. Do we have any more comments, questions, debate? We're not going to
change it unfortunately but if not then do you want to sum up?
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:00:26
Councillor Ebony. Thank you. Yeah obviously I share members frustration with this as
I said at the time. This was a government imposed change that was strongly opposed.
I certainly know that in the case of the spokesperson for my party and I've heard him talk about it.
I totally therefore understand that.
I think it's important though to, in reflecting what some of the people have said, to say
the process is still there for people to make their representations.
It's just that the decision makers in most cases will now be the officers.
Now in 97 odd percent it is at the moment.
So that won't be a change.
The change is that essentially members will be cut out of the decision -making process
for any application of less than nine properties.
And also, you know, the gateway test will apply for any other referrals.
And obviously we have a gateway test, we have a review panel at the moment.
So that process is not too dissimilar to one that we are already familiar with.
but totally agree with the point that Dyliss has made
that we have been working well
and it's been working well in our council.
So, it's really frustrating when the government
just decides, no, we're gonna change it everywhere
because we think that councils are all NIMBYs
and reject planning applications, which isn't the case.
But unfortunately that's the place that we're in.
I think what's important also to say is that,
and in answer to Councillor Wilkins question
that we as members, and you said chair
that you use the portal. I've never done it that way. I was engaged with the officer,
but I think going forward we're probably potentially going to use that as the way
in which we can make our representations, but obviously we can still talk to
officers and have discussion with them. I'm picking up on the point about
conditions that Councillor Blumfeld made. That obviously is something that you
could put into any representations that you make. I think it's, yeah, it is
frustrating that essentially the government doesn't trust us as members
to make these decisions because I think we have a really good record in making
them. But I think we also have to have a duty to essentially make those decisions
in accordance with the law. In answer to Councillor In's point, we don't have a
legal officer here at the moment.
And obviously we have drafted what's here in conjunction
with our legal officer to make sure what we're doing
is watertight.
And I think obviously we have a review panel at the moment
where we put written submissions in and a counsellor
and an officer meet.
I think what's really clear from this is the government
believes that officers know best.
They don't trust counsellors to make these decisions,
which is unfortunate because as I say, I think, you know,
and as everybody has said,
We make some really good planning decisions here. Sometimes we don't agree with the officers
but actually often that gets a better outcome not to agree with the officers. The committee makes a different decision and that will be constrained
by these changes, but you know
short of a change of government and clearly, you know, that's what Councillor Fowle has asking for but I don't think that's coming anytime soon.
This is now the law of the land from the 31st of October. So I would ask all members
reluctantly to vote for these changes because we are of local planning
authority. We need to take planning decisions. Our offices need to have an
appropriate scheme in which to operate in and so I would ask all members
reluctantly to support these recommendations as amended by the
amendment from Juliet. Thank you chair. Thank you councillor Ebony. Let's go to the
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:04:09
vote.
Okay, that's 30. That's 19, 4 and 9 abstentions. It looks like two people haven't voted according to this.
I've got a couple of questions.
Anyway, there we go, 29.
Either way, if somebody's missed out, it's carried.
So that protocol now goes, sits in the constitution.
Right, next item is item eight, an polling station review.

8 Polling Station Review

And I just want to stress, and I'm sure it will be stressed as well,
that this is to approve a consultation. This is not to discuss what we're
consulting about. We're saying do we want to consult on this or do we not? So you
know if I'd love to bring up all sorts of polling stations but I'm not going
to because that's not what this vote is for.
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:05:28
Councillor Ebony please introduce. Thank you. Just to draw members attention to a
revised Annex B which has been circulated to all members and you can
find online. So that's just to clarify which potentially where if polling
stations were to be removed where people who currently vote at that polling
station would go to vote. So members the cost of elections has risen
significantly in recent years costing us more to hire the polling stations.
Obviously we have to pay for the staff and also we have to pay for postage and
printing. The average cost of a polling station in the Cotswolds to run it for the day is
880 pounds. And the last district and parish elections that were held in 2023 cost in the
region of 250 ,000 pounds. And obviously we had county council elections last year and
there were 110 polling stations in the district at that election serving the eight county
divisions. So we've been meeting as an electoral matters working group. We've
had at least two meetings to my memory supported by our elections manager. We've
had a look at the options for reducing potentially the cost but we are very
mindful of the requirements of section 18 of the Representation of the People Act
and that includes accessibility, convenience for electors and providing
reasonable facilities for electors. So in wards where we were potentially going to
bring something forward this evening, ward members were asked for initial
feedback and then we considered that at our subsequent meeting. So at the most
recent meeting before today, we came up with the proposal that's in front of you
for consultation and that is that polling stations with fewer than 150
electors should be reviewed and these are highlighted in a revised Annex B.
There are 14 polling stations that have been identified in that process and 13
of those there are proposed alternative locations. It's worth saying to members
that the electorate figures don't take into account number of postal voters so
obviously postal voters won't be attending the polling station unless
they are taking their postal vote along on election day as that can go up and
down at the election and it has recently reduced with the law change although
it's usually in our district between 15 and 20 percent. So what we're
recommending in the report is that we consult with local stakeholders
including parish councils on the proposed changes and members of
Parliament, county councillors. In addition to the consultation the officers
will visit the stations to evaluate their suitability should there be an
increase in the number of electors allocated to them. If we give the
approval to go ahead there'll be a final report will come so we're going to have
a final report come to our next council meeting in November not December as it
says in the report. So it's a responsibility that we have to look at
polling stations. I accept that potentially people won't necessarily
want to change. I think we have a responsibility also to make sure as a
local authority we are spending our money wisely and we as a council pay for
the elections and we ask our town and parish councils to pay for their share
of the elections. So there is a cost that comes to this council and that's a
consideration I think. So what we're saying this evening is can we please go
our members agree to consultation on this and then we will get that hear that
feedback from the consultees and make a decision at our meeting in November for
any changes that we agree and then any changes that we did agree would come in
for the May 2027 elections to this council which we will now be having.
Councillor Paul Hodgkinson - 1:09:57
I just wanted to understand who was in the working group, because actually in the notes
it doesn't clarify that.
So that was the first question and then secondly just to reconfirm Mike that all
members of the working group agreed to what is being proposed. Thank you.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:10:35
Council Hodgkinson must be telepathic because I was about to say that it was a cross party
working group and as with the other working group it works very well because we have a
really healthy debate.
So in making this recommendation to council,
it is cross party.
We both felt, we all felt that this was a sensible line
to draw at 150 and Mike has articulated it very, very well.
Is that balance between the cost
and a quarter of a million pounds spent on election,
bearing in mind we're now gonna have
another local election next year,
versus the need to have democratic representation.
And I'm reminded, as many of us are,
having been in the Blockly ward a number of times recently,
not least today, that you go on a doorstep.
And someone who's elderly, quite often they
say that they like to exercise their democratic right.
They like to walk or drive to the polling station.
And some of us were at the postal vote opening today.
Mike said the figures typically on postal votes
are about 15%.
Interestingly, in Blockly, it's 8%.
So it's actually surprisingly low.
I'm sure there are reasons for it.
But I do think we've got to get the balance right but I personally think that with the working group and the way it worked this
Recommendation is very robust and I would be supporting it
but I may have to leave early because I've got to go to a parish council meeting where there's something quite important and
Recognising how important local democracy is soon
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:12:19
I think just to echo Councillor Fowles' point, he's pretty much encapsulated what I was going
to say. It's a balance between democracy and cost. As a town councillor in Cirencester,
I see the burgeoning cost of elections and we have to make that balance. I'm also very
pleased to have David's support as well on this. So yeah happy to second this
recommendation that it goes to consultation. Thanks for that Councillor Evans.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:12:50
Councillor David Cunningham - 1:12:55
Councillor Cunningham. Thank you Mr. Chair. Three of the polling stations are in my
ward and I did mention this in the reply to the working group. We're all aware of
are aware that for some people, walking up the road to cast their vote is by far and
away the easiest way for them to exercise their democratic right. They may not have
the ability to get a bus because we don't have enough busses, they may not drive, they
may not be well enough to go anywhere else. I think all of these things need to be a factor
in our consultation with the various parish councils. But I would also ask
that the council makes a real commitment, and I don't mean sticking it on social
media, because a lot of people in that demographic don't use social media, that
we make a real concerted effort to advertise about postal voting. Because it
is going to be for a lot of people the only way they're going to be able to
register their vote. So I would ask that the council commits to doing a real push
for postal voting and that they do consider the demographic that we have in
the district and the fact that for a lot of people losing their local polling
station will be a blow. Thank you. Thank you David. I know a lot of people like
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:14:21
the walk up to the polling station even if they're a bit infirm. Yeah.
Councillor Chaud. Thank you, Chair. I just think this is just
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:14:33
another nail in the coffin for democracy in my view. The trouble is the postal voting
is that a lot of people think that once they've registered that they are allowed to postal
vote forever, so they miss out on the next election because they think they've voted
and then their postal vote doesn't come in,
and then they're too late to apply for one,
and under the rules, which seems also unfair.
But also in my little villages,
which are, they're very quiet, gentle people,
and voting is an occasion.
It's an important occasion.
It's a bit like going to the pub.
And I just think it's a breakdown of democracy.
I do not like the polling stations being taken away from my villages.
They're important to them. They like them.
And it is another very strong sign of democracy.
Thank you, Julia.
And I'm sure you'll feed into the consultation.
I'm sure you'll encourage the parishes to feed into the consultation,
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:15:37
their feelings, the strong feelings you've said today.
Do we have any other comments on this? Councillor Spivey?
Yeah, thank you. I think that we should go out to consultation on this. It's the right thing to do because we do want to make sure that we're consulting with those as you said.
As was said in laying this out, we do need to look at this and make periodic reviews. It's only right that we do so but equally it's only right that we ask those who are most affected what their views are and then we can come back and make an informed decision at that point.
I'm in support of the consultation I agree with some of the concerns around
removing polling stations but this is absolutely why we should consult so I'll
be supporting this today thank you.
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 1:16:22
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:16:25
Councillor Spivey okay let's go to the vote on whether we should oh sorry you
want to wrap up sorry Mike you know I keep keep forgetting. Thank you I haven't
Councillor Mike Evemy - 1:16:32
got the list in front of me Paul but from memory and there might be others so
there's myself Councillor Layton, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Fowles,
Councillor Hall -Wilson, I don't know if there's anyone else I've forgotten who were
all members of the working group and yes we did all agree we had some discussion
and debate didn't we and we originally went out and consulted on with lot more
polling stations potentially with larger electorates and we decided that actually
no it was right to set the consultation limit as we have in the proposal. I think
in terms of to Councillor Cunningham about advertising postal voting
certainly I have that discussion with the electoral services manager so if and
when we decide essentially to take polling station away from a particular
locality a village then absolutely I think we will that a certain commitment
from the our officers would write and make best endeavours to give people that
option to postal vote from with they no longer have a polling station in there
their village. I totally get the points about the demographic. I think in terms
of we have a responsibility and I would say this is where I would disagree with
Councillor Judd. Voting is a civic responsibility. We would hope that
everyone does it, not everybody does, but it's not a social occasion. Some people
that might be a byproduct in some places but if you think about the numbers
that we're talking about here, we've got polling stations that have fewer than 150
electors. So if you do the maths, if you have, even if you have it, say you have
15 % of people who are postal voting, so they're not going to be going to the
polling station, take off 20 for a rough say. So that's 130. Even in a general
election where your turnout is 80%, you're probably going to have 100 people
go to a polling station, one of these potentially that might not be there
anymore. The polls are open for 15 hours. So you're talking about six or seven
people an hour going to the polling station and we are paying for two people
to sit there all day. So and I think the other thing that I would want to people
to recognise is that actually getting people to do that job you know it's
quite a big ask running an election when essentially you know we've got to find
at least 220 people and some of those polling stations are much bigger and
have more staff. So logistically this is a very big task that our electoral
services team have to undertake each time we have a full set of elections. So
I think it's just I want members to be aware of that that actually having to
find two people to go to these very small polling stations may not be always
that easy and we've got to reflect I think a little bit on that as well. But I
do take the point other members we will hope if we agree to consult on this now
we will get feedback from County Councillors, Members of Parliament, Town and
Parish Councils and then we can use that in order to make a decision at our next
meeting. So thank you very much for all the contributions and I would urge
members to support the recommendations at the bottom of page 131. Thank you. Okay
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:19:50
thank you very much Mike. So we'll go to the vote and remember we're not
voting on the content, we're voting on whether we should ask people about the
So let's do this.
So that's 29 .4.
And I think that's it, because we've lost Council files, haven't we?
So that's carried. Thank you very much, everybody.
Don't forget to speak up to your communities if you feel strongly about it.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:20:33
So next item is Item 9.

9 Establishing a Joint Voluntary Committee - Local Government Reorganisation

Item 9 is withdrawn because of local government review is paused.

10 Treasury Outturn report 2025-26

Item 10 Treasury Out -turn Report.
Purpose is to receive and discuss details of the Council's Treasury management performance
for the period of 1st of April to 31st of March.
and this will be presented by Councillor Patrick Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:21:01
Thank you very much, Chair.
We receive these reports twice a year.
The Treasury Management Out -term Report for the financial year ended very nearly six months ago.
And the reason that we received them is that in February 2011,
even before I came here, the Council adopted the Chartered Institute of Public Finance
and Accountancy, known as CIPFAA to those of you. Treasury Management in the Public
Services Code of Practise, the CIPFAA Code, which requires us to approve reports on Treasury
management activities at the end of the first half of the financial year and at the end
of the financial year. So to some extent this is history, but it is generally quite positive
history. Members will be familiar with the graph that shows all of Arlene Close's
clients and their returns. That's that load of vertical lines that's on page
165. We're not quite as close to the middle as we may have been in the past
but we're very very average and that is very important to this council in having
the cash flows and indeed having the investments that produce good returns. I
I can see figures like 4 .94 % in one place
and even better in others.
The other point I was gonna make
is that the paragraph 5 .4
carries the importance and welcome news
that something called the statutory override,
which is basically something that says
you've got to at some point if you're a council
realise your losses, has been extended.
I forget whether this is the third, fourth or fifth time,
that has been extended following consultations
by the MHCLG and it's been extended
until the 31st of March, 2029,
which may turn out to be an important date
for the life of this council
or maybe past the end of this council.
And that is to do with the investments in pooled funds.
And every time we come to this,
I'm struck by my memory of when we first
had Arling closed before us and what effective advisors they have been with
regard to this money. I'm sure I've spoken more than enough so I move the
recommendations. Thank you very much Councillor Coleman. So do we have any
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:23:33
questions for clarity? Councillor Jenkinson and then Councillor Bell. Thank you chair.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:23:40
Could we please have a clarification of what the word approved means as under
some circumstances it means we think it's jolly good and in others it means
something else. What does it mean here?
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:23:54
I'm going to turn to a legal officer for a definition of that in the context of
Angela Claridge - 1:24:03
democratic services. Good evening members. Perhaps if I could ask you
Councillor Jenkinson what I mean it's to approve the out turn report as presented in front of you
Perhaps there's an underlying question there that I haven't quite
Understood because this is a regular report that comes to this
Council so perhaps if you could elaborate a little bit more for me
So I could understand you essentially to say you're being asked to approve it
Yes, exactly accept accept it as presented to you
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:24:38
Well, there are two sentences. The first one asks us to note and the second one doesn't
say please note, it asks us to approve. So presumably there is a difference between noting
and approving. And I'd like to know what the difference is.
Angela Claridge - 1:24:58
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:25:06
Well, I'll go to my right for a second. Your left. Go for it, David.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:25:14
So, thank you, Chair. So, this report will have been considered by Audit and
Governance Committee who make a recommendation to full council. Full
council are required to accept and approve the report, but there is no
decision for the council to make because it relates to events in the past. Where
there is a different type of report, which is the Treasury Management
strategy which comes forward in the February cycle as part of the annual
budget members are asked to approve the strategy in advance of being there. This
is a out -term report so approve is used in the sense that this is the committee
or the body of the council that has to formally accept the report and approve
its contents. So it's a report that you are required to accept and approve on
the basis that that is recording your understanding and acceptance of what's
in there but there isn't a scope to challenge I suppose the numbers are in
there because as has been said by Councillor Coleman it is events that
have already taken place but there is an important information in there in terms
of compliance so there is information on whether a council has complied with the
potential indicators that were set as part of the Treasury management strategy
It would have been part of the budget that was set for 25 -26.
Thank you, David.
I think that's, yeah.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:26:37
So when I sign off my accounts at the end of the year and lodge them with Companies House,
that's I'm approving my report.
So that's what we're doing.
Okay. Councillor Brassington.
Oh, okay. Go for it.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:26:51
Well, given the continued statement of the same word being used,
not necessarily in an explanation, my understanding is that we're saying that audit
and governance have looked at this and have decided that it's an accurate report and that
if we approve it we have no reason to believe that they're wrong. If it means something
else I'd be grateful if we could be told.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:27:20
No, it doesn't mean anything else but members are asked to formally recognise that the report
has been put before them. Those charged with governance which is audit and
governance committee have reviewed and have made the recommendation that this
is formally approved by this body of members. I'm sorry I can't explain it any
more clearly than that in terms of using different language. This is a formal
reporting mechanism that's been in place for a number of years. Council has always
approved the out -term report regardless I suppose of the content they can ask
questions in terms of how was the performance compared to what was planned
understand whether there are any underlying concerns with that
performance but in terms of as set out it has been reviewed by members charged
with governance that have that responsibility in the Constitution to
at Treasury management matters, but it is under terms of the CIPA code, it needs to
come back to full council to be formally recognised, endorsed, approved, whatever word you can use at that point.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:28:33
Thank you, David. So if there's, down the line, there's some questions are asked and
there's a governance issue and they say, did council approve, were council aware
of this? You say yes, it was approved on this date, it was put before them, they
all read it from page to page in and out and asked any questions they wanted to
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:28:53
ask like Councillor Brassington is going to do now. Right, thank you. The
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:28:57
question I was going to ask is on page 163 paragraph 5 .9. Off we go. It says
meeting the council's investment objectives are monitored and discussed
with Arlene Close. Who does that discussion? Not me.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:29:25
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:29:27
Thank you, Chair. So there are regular meetings with Arlene Close, more formal meetings with
Arlene Close on a six -monthly basis. They are known as the strategy meetings. Those
Burge as the Deputy Section 151 Officer and Sian Hammond as the Treasury
accountant who works for Publica. So those are the three people that have the
regular contact with Arlene Close. Thank you. Thank you very much David. Are there
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:29:54
any more questions on you know how and now do we have a seconder for this? So
you do have a question. Sorry David I didn't answer your question. Thank you
I'm
Councillor David Cunningham - 1:30:10
Okay, Mr. Chairman, is it okay if I aim these although this report is from cabinet?
You can do it through the chair, yeah fine.
I can do it through the chair towards the 151. Can I do that? Thank you.
I fully understand that this is history. This is an old report. It's yesterday's news.
And I clearly applaud, applaud the exceptional investment returns.
But in 7 .3 it's clear that we have had a breach of our own rules.
Can the 151 clarify if he expects the confusion on LGR to continue to prolong this capital
expenditure underspend that's causing these excesses?
And if yes, and in light of the recent MPC minutes, does he have the authority and flexibility
to retain these excesses in short -term liquid instruments rather than having to push them
further down the curve which might be detrimental to the returns?
Thanks.
David.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:31:20
Thank you, Chair.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:31:22
So, paragraph 7 .3 and the table shows that the Council did not comply with the Treasury
Management Indicator that assessed what the impact of a 1 % increase or a 1 % decrease it
would have in interest rates on the Council.
What this measures is the sensitivity the Council's revenue budget has to either investment
returns or the cost of borrowing.
The fact that the number has increased is large because the council is a net investor.
It has more money invested than it has borrowed.
You'll see from table one, there was a six million pound increase in our cash balances.
And as Councillor Cunningham has referred to, part of the reason for cash balances going
up is that we estimated them to be level around 22 million, the end of the year at 28 million.
and part of that will be underspends on the revenue budget,
underspends on the capital programme.
I would expect during the course of this year
for that to be somewhat repeated.
We have quite a significant expenditure item,
waste recycling vehicle, six million pounds,
given the lead times there are on those vehicles,
whether they turn up this side of 31st March
or the other side of 31st March will influence that.
So I'd expect there to be some change during the indicator.
In terms of the authority that is rested in the section 151
to make treasury management decisions,
it's the sly principle, security, liquidity, and yield.
So we need to ensure there are adequate liquid balances
available to service the council's day -to -day
cash management.
So we get cash in, through council tax, business rates,
government grants, we pay money out to staff,
suppliers, and so forth.
When undertaking those treasury management
investment decisions, we have a mix of both short
and longer term pooled funds that are held.
The longer term pooled funds are held for
investment returns.
The value of those investments can fluctuate.
The shorter term deposits largely in banks and money
market funds are held to be liquid.
So, we're looking at the cash needs of the council
over that period of time, which is usually a year,
where we are satisfied that the council
can make longer term investments,
the treasury management strategy sets out
the counterparties we could use,
the limits for each of those counterparties.
But in terms of the impact of LGR,
the authority is for managing the council's cash flow.
So that means to understand what the council will need
up until the point it doesn't exist.
So I would need to take into account
investments that are made and cash needed.
If that is best served by making a longer term deposit,
then I would need to understand that in the light of LGR
and there is some guidance around how the council
and its cash balances would merge with other authorities.
But as it stands, I'm focusing on the needs of this council.
I'm not necessarily taking into account the duration and LGR. I'm taking that
into account in terms of what's set out in the Treasury Management Strategy
which sets those limits. It is a factor but that authority in terms of Section
151 decisions is based on the Treasury Management Strategy. Thank you very much
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:35:05
Dave for a fulsome response.
I've got a question.
Councillor Bressington.
Thank you.
Table four on page 160.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:35:16
I feel that members need to have more information
about these funds so we can make important decisions.
I mean, looking at that table, we
funds, I assume they're unit trusts. What I would like to see is where those four
funds, where are they compared to their peers? It's quite common for funds to be
ranked in relation to their peers, so I would like to see their ranking so we
can determine whether they are doing well or not and then maybe they need to
be adjusted if they're not performing, but we don't have that information at the
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:36:06
I'll refer to David. Is that a decision, that wouldn't be a decision made here, that would be a decision made by a different body presumably and you would provide more information in that, during that committee but I'll pass to you.
David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:36:19
Thank you Chair. In terms of further information we can of course provide further information and I would extend an invitation to Councillor Brastenden to the training that will be provided by Arlene Close
shortly before the audit and governance committee meeting on the 5th of October
where they will no doubt answer some of those questions in quite technical
detail. In terms of performance and where a particular investment ranks in the
pool of similar types of performance I would caution members from trying to
pick the best performing thing in terms of if we've got number three and there's
another one that's number one past performance is not necessarily an
indicator of future performance and in terms of the overall portfolio we need
ensure the portfolio is balanced and diversified so that the council is not
exposed to undue risks from having too much investment in terms of one part of
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:37:15
its pulled -front estate. Thank you David. Okay right does anybody wish to speak in
debate or ask any more questions or would look like we probably okay do you
Sorry, did you, you're right? Yeah, we're good, we're good? Okay, so I'm gonna ask
Councillor Coleman to sum up if he'd like to. I'm so sorry Tony, I do
Councillor Tony Dale - 1:37:50
apologise. Councillor Tony Dab. Thank you, Chair. It's always a pleasure to be
at a second motion, if I get the chance. The Treasury Management Report is
It is hardly the most earth -shattering news for all the members to have to decide whether
they should debate it or discuss it.
However, I did feel I should start this seconding by thanking the forbearance of our Chief Monitoring
Officer and our Chief Finance Officer, our Section 151, because you have answered our
questions admirably and we are very grateful for that.
Treasury management, and I will remind members of this because your 151 has already said
it. Treasury management in the public sector is about security, liquidity and yield. And
I for one am seconding this motion. I'm not going to try to reassure members about the
security of Treasury. We live in a very insecure world. And we currently live in a world which
is changing faster than I can remember in the entirety of my lifetime. And thank goodness
I was born after the Second World War.
But I do see a world fraught with change,
fraught with significant changes in state determination,
in the use of military power, and in the use of economic power.
We should not, even though we are a relatively modest district council,
be completely blind to the world where we need secure investment,
as well as liquidity and yield.
So, I would like to second this report.
I think as ever, it's always a joy to see money
flowing into the council because we have reserves.
For that I am very grateful.
I'm quite confident we will be spending
those capital reserves on the right things
during the course and the excellency of this council
on things like the waste vehicle fleet
where we should be so much greener
and so much better than many other councils.
But in the meantime, we shall have even more money
to spend on even better vehicles.
So I encourage my fellow members to vote for this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tony.
And my apologies for scooting forward and so on.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:40:03
Would you like to sum up, Councillor Coleman?
Yes, first of all, thank you very much
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:40:09
to those who contributed questions
for our officers to answer.
and how much I appreciate the reminder that we need to be prudent and cautious.
Because I decided not to print 35 copies of this piece, I will just mention it in passing
then. Amongst those things called sub -stacks, there is a very influential and authoritative
one called Comment is Freed by a father and son, Lawrence Friedman, one of the most distinguished
young liberals in this country, well into his 70s now I know,
who is a real authority and was on various senior committees,
and his son Sam.
And what they did was commission an article from a man called
Dr. Ian Raby about, who's a president of Oxilim worldwide,
it's about shipping, basically, and my eyes were opened.
The risks around the world to shipping from wars and conflicts
are far greater than we realise, and we all rely in this country
on shipping more than we think. My conclusion at the end of this was to keep
checking whether I'm being prudent enough and I don't mean with my own
money I mean with this council. Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Colm.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:41:20
So we'll go to the vote and the recommendations of the council results.
Note the council's Treasury management performance for the period of 1st of
April to 31st of March and approve the Treasury management out -turn report for
25, 26. There we go.
Okay.
That's unanimous.
Thank you all very much.
And the next item is the next meeting,

11 Notice of Motions

which will be on the 25th of November, 2026.

12 Next meeting

And probably see a lot of you tomorrow
in the North Cotswolds, if not tonight.
Thank you very much.

There are currently no votes to display