Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 3 February 2025, 4:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Apologies
Agenda item :
2 Substitute Members
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
4 Minutes
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
6 Chair's Announcements
Agenda item :
7 Public Questions
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 Member Questions
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
9 Report back on recommendations
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Agenda item :
10 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Agenda item :
11 Work Plan and Forward Plan
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
12 Update on Strategic Plan for North Cotswolds
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
11 Work Plan and Forward Plan
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
12 Update on Strategic Plan for North Cotswolds
Share this agenda point
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Lisa Spivey
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Officer
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Jon Wareing
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Clare Turner
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Officer
Agenda item :
13 Budget 2025/26 and Medium Term Financial Strategy
Share this agenda point
- 2025-2026 Revenue Budget Capital Programme and MTFS CAB DRAFT v4 31012025
- Annex B - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025-26
- Annex C - Budget Pressures and Savings 2025-26 v2
- Annex D_Capital Programme 202526 to 202829
- Annex D 1_Capital Programme 202526 to 202829 V2 full detail
- Annex E_ Draft Annual Capital Strategy and MRP Statement 202526
- Annex F Annual 202526 Draft Treasury Management and Non Treasury Investment Strategy
- Annex G_Detailed Budget 2025 2026
- Annex I - Budget Consultation Results
-
Cabinet Member
-
Cabinet Member
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Jon Wareing
-
Cabinet Member
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Cabinet Member
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Cabinet Member
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Cabinet Member
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Cabinet Member
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
-
Councillor David Cunningham
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
-
Cabinet Member
-
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:05
Good afternoon everyone. Very nice to see you all here again. I expect Delis will bejoining us shortly. A warm welcome to you all present, including any members of the
public, whether in person or indeed watching online.
As always, I also want to acknowledge and welcome the cabinet members and officers who
will be giving their reports. To all the members of the committee and also the officers present
to support the overview and scrutiny committee in its functions.
Do go through the normal housekeeping, that is the far exit, out there to the left are
1 Apologies
the toilets. Please, please can everyone turn off or put on silent any mobile device. This
meeting will be live streamed and will be available to review later. If anybody wishes
to film the proceedings. This is permitted, provided it does not disrupt proceedings.
Today we don't have sadly beside me Claire Locke, who unavoidably can't be here, but
I'm going to be helped by Nicky Mackenzie -Des and Andrew Brown.
So to start the meeting, apologies. We've had one apology.
Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer - 0:01:20
We have had an apology from Tony Slater who David Fowles is acting the substitute.Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:01:26
Thank you David for stepping in.Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:01:31
Does anybody have any declarations of interest on items on the agenda?2 Substitute Members
3 Declarations of Interest
None of that.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:01:39
Then could we go to the minutes of the 6th of January?4 Minutes
I have notified my amendments to Andrew Brown and those who have been incorporated in these minutes.
But anybody else have any other things they would like to raise as a matter on the minutes?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:03
If I may be satisfied with those minutes, could I have a proposer and seconder for thoseminutes for people who were present?
Claire Turner proposed, Councillor Spivey seconded, and could I now go to the vote?
5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:28
I didn't actually really spot any matters arising.Was there anything that anybody else felt that we should be talking about as matters
arising?
There we are.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:41
Moving swiftly on.6 Chair's Announcements
It is the chair's announcements.
We have moved around the usual order of the meeting to put the updates from the gloss
scrutiny committee earlier as we ran out of time at our January meeting to look at these.
This brings up the issue of times and overrunning.
Despite my best efforts, that last meeting we overran and there were the items that we
able to discuss. We haven't done it on this occasion partly because Claire Lockwasser
won't be here and she will, anyway, she's not here. We were going to put suggested times
against each agenda item. But bearing that in mind, I'm definitely Chair, Councillor
Selwyn, has agreed that he will, if he feels that something is going slightly over the
time, that he will give a 10 minute warning. It is not just down to me to watch the clock
and followed by a five minute warning, after which we will close discussion on whatever
topic we are covering and move on to the next one. I don't foresee a huge problem in this
one, but obviously we have got the draft budget and MTF which might take some time. But at
the end of the meeting. Please remind everybody to be succinct in your questions and likewise
can cabinet members and officers be succinct in your replies as far as is possible. As
I have mentioned the last item is the most important, the draft budget MTF, so we must
make sure we have time to delve into this. The original plan was to get the report to
sooner but with both our CFO having an injured finger making typing difficult and the size
of the document itself, I'm sorry that you will have only seen it on Friday online and
for those who prefer printed copies will have arrived in the post on Saturday.
I have requested that reports come through in due time and it is a large document look
up through and I know some people had other things to do at the weekend rather than go
lots of figures. But I do understand the difficulties in presenting it in a more timely way.
I'm not going to be at the next O &S meeting. Councillor Sullivan has agreed to chair the
meeting and Claire Turner will be vice chair. Just one final note, I'm pleased that due
to the reduction in cabinet meetings, O &S should be able to see all the important reports
ahead of cabinet because we are going to have the O &S and cabinet meetings in a better sync.
So I think that's going to be good and it means that we can put forward the recommendations
which will then go to cabinet.
So thank you for that.
I wondered whether we had any public questions.
No questions from the public.
Member questions, that's from member questions from people not members of the O &S.
I don't think we see any of those.
7 Public Questions
8 Member Questions
So I just wanted to give a report back on the recommendation that was made at the last overview of scrutiny.
9 Report back on recommendations
And the O &S's recommendation on climate and ecological emergency were accepted by cabinet and that has gone forward.
So that's excellent.
Now I'm going to ask, Councillor Neill is not here, but Councillor Jenkinson is for your report on the Gloss County County Scrutiny Committee.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
10 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:06:27
There is a written version of it under the circumstances you may or may not have readit.
So depending on that, we could save time by me simply saying are there questions that
you want to ask or I could try and run you through it if that is not the case.
Please advise.
Thank you, Councillor Treggerson.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:06:50
I'm hopeful that most people have read through, I know it was a very bigagenda to read through, have read through and have you got any questions for
Councillor Jepers? He's doing a great job of reporting back from the County Council.
Of course things may be about to change, we all thought it might be going to,
we might know more about the devolution today which apparently is now being
pushed back some more days so we're in the suspense continues but does anybody
have any questions for council Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:07:30
right well thank you for that if council Neil does arrive later I will allow herobviously to give her report when she arrives thank you now earlier this
this afternoon, not this morning.
11 Work Plan and Forward Plan
We did have an ONS meeting to discuss the work plan
for the year going forward.
It was slightly challenged because it was meant
to be a hybrid meeting.
Well, some of us thought it was hybrid.
Anyway, to get the technology to work so that we all could talk
and get together took a bit of time.
But we did actually in the end have a very useful
and helpful meeting.
Councillor Jenkinson certainly brought up some ideas
for what we should explore, partly, well mainly because of the situation regarding unitary
and lots of changes which might be coming down the pipeline together with public transfer
and so on. We haven't added much to the normal framework for the work plan because we want
to leave space for things which will undoubtedly emerge out of that change that we are going
to be anticipating and there will be things that we want to look at. One of the things,
as you know, I'm very keen on is that the town and parish councils are included in this
process and I think it's something which we usefully as ONS could be contributing to.
Also as I noted, the local plan for whatever reason wasn't on the draft work plan and that
certainly needs is a very important item.
There will be some others.
The officers going back thinking about how best to present them,
the potentially the best dates.
We also talked about second homes and long -term empty
properties, about how we can deal with this.
We all know that Councillor Neill is
very keen on the long -term empty properties,
particularly in her area around Stowe and the Wold.
So that will be circulated when the final sort of programme is put together.
Did anybody want to ask me any other questions on the work plan?
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:09:51
Just for those that weren't on the work planning, the tone of the meeting was very much,Whilst we recognise what's in there is still very valid and important, we were quite conscious of not to try and overload the committee because there are some significant things coming up on the horizon, unitary and so on.
So we didn't want to overfill this because we wanted to be able to respond to stuff coming up over the next month or two.
And I believe Councillor Ebony wants to come in.
Yes, Councillor Ebony.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:24
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:30
We had our technology issues earlier.I still see the system is a gremlin now.
Cabinet Member - 0:10:56
I have just noticed on looking at the report that for your March meeting, my name is downfor the public conveniences report,
but that should now be Councillor Wilkinson,
who looks after public conveniences
within the Cabinet, not me anymore.
12 Update on Strategic Plan for North Cotswolds
It wasn't.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:11:16
I thought you were going to have had top newson the unitaries, but anyway.
Right. Thank you very much for that,
and I hope that's been noted for the future going forward.
Right.
Can I ask a question?
Councillor David Fowles - 0:11:31
Surely, given the way in which the meetings are now dovetailedin with the Cabinet meetings, as the impact of devolution
and public impacts on the Cabinet and their work plan,
that will surely just filter through,
won't it, in the normal course of events,
since the relationship between Cabinet and Ovienn's scrutiny
is sort of very closely aligned.
11 Work Plan and Forward Plan
So won't it really take a lead from what's going on with cabinet in terms of some of those decisions?
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:12:05
Yes indeed and that's really worked and it is coming through, it is scheduled on the cabinet.But at the moment we're all slightly in the dark about timings and the impact.
So yes absolutely and I think it's much better to follow that.
As we mentioned at our work plan, a lot of officers are going to have a lot of work to do around this.
So we don't need to be adding, we want to oversee what the important things are,
but we don't need to be adding on too many other additional things from outside,
which may not be, bearing in mind our district council looks to have a shortened lifespan.
on whatever happens is probably not going to go beyond 2028 or 29. So yes, thank you.
I just used this opportunity, I was going to mention it earlier, but
Councillor David Fowles - 0:12:53
there wasn't a placeto do it. Obviously you got your papers quite late, but as you know Chairman, I got my papers
even later because I'd like to thank Andrew for getting them to me. Well I got them at lunchtime
today so I'll perhaps remain uncharacteristically quiet because I've done my best to keep up
but I'm sure you'll all be ahead of me. I just thought I ought to mention that. Thank
you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:13:24
Well, thank you for that. We'll move forward now to the next item which is the update on12 Update on Strategic Plan for North Cotswolds
the strategic plan for North Cotswold. I thought it, well I've got Matt Britton here. Joe Harris
isn't going to be here as well. Matt Britton, the floor is yours.
Officer - 0:14:03
I am Matt Britton, the interim head of planning policy and infrastructure.I am helping to oversee the delivery of the local plan and other planning policy documents
at the moment.
So, yes, we, back in January 2024, overview and scrutiny committee considered a recommendation
to undertake a local plan consultation.
And at the time that included a strategic growth proposal for around 1 ,500 houses in
and also setting up a Moreton -marsh working group. So this update
provides some key things that we've delivered over the past
year and some things that are coming up. So yeah we held the local plan
consultation on, well it started in February and ended in April 2024. We held
also a couple of consultation events up in Moreton in Marsh. One was a drop -in
session that was an all -day session and we did a question time style event for
the community as well. The local plan consultation received a
really large number of consultation responses and so it's a lot of interest
which was great so I'm in the intervening period we've been going
through all of those consultation responses and updating the local plan
policies to reflect those. We've also undertaken, well part of the local plan
consultation included a call for additional development sites as well and
So that identified some further sites for development and we've been assessing those sites in our strategic housing and economic land availability assessment update.
So we've had a contractor working on that for us.
We've also commenced a feasibility study to look at whether strategic growth in Moreton
and Marsh is feasible.
So that includes things like how and where infrastructure is going to be located, phasing
of different phases of development, and also the timing of development as well, which is
really important for the local plan in terms of delivering and demonstrating when stuff
is going to be delivered. Our local plan consultation highlighted very loud and clear concerns about
infrastructure, particularly sewage infrastructure in Moreton and Marsh. We helped to put on
a sewage summit on the 8th of July last year, which brought together environmental activists,
water companies and other agencies to delve into the underlying causes of sewage pollution
and what we can do to fix it.
We also held a further community event on the 9th of October which was run by Planning
for Real, a specialist consultancy and that sort of thing.
That helped to get further feedback from the community on key issues.
Also, we wanted to get their feedback on the Moreton Marsh Working Group as well, with
the terms of reference and how it could be engaged and also people who they thought would
be good to sit on the Working Group.
So we're planning to hold a second community event just on the 12th of February, where we'll be feeding back from the last one, but also doing a briefing on the working group that's coming up, and also the Moreton and Marsh town council are going to be presenting on their railway station redevelopment.
Also, full council voted to approve the Morton and Marsh Working Group Terms of Reference
and the membership back on 22 January from this year.
Following on from this, there is an inaugural Morton and Senior Marsh Working Group meeting
proposed.
In the report it says it is on the 13th of March but actually it is probably going to
on the 31st of March now. So we've had to switch the data about a bit.
There's been lots of things going on in the background and we're preparing now
for the next stage of the local plan consultation. But yeah that's a bit of an update on what we've been doing.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:18:56
Well we appreciate that and as it was the O &S who suggested that this workinggroup should be set up and the impact of the growth and the changes in Morton go far greater
than Morton. There was a curiosity we were asking, in fact somebody else was probably
going to ask you this, why it was actually called for the North Cotswolds when it is
very focused on Morton. I just don't know why the title was that. But it will have an
impact over the whole North Cotswolds but it is very much a Morton thing. I know we
have a Morton member here who no doubt would want to ask questions. I mean at
the moment I'm just going to say that the traffic is gridlock and you can't
get from one end of Morton in under half an hour to the other whichever way you
go. Does anybody have any questions? I shall take it from left to
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:19:47
right. SoThank you, Matt.
Councillor Lisa Spivey - 0:19:52
I have a few questions, I will fire them out.Where are we at on timing on this local plan review?
I just feel that on the 8th of January,
so well over a year ago, almost 13 months ago,
the scrutiny considered to have a working group set up
and now we are having that first working group 15 months later,
it doesn't really feel like we are getting
any kind of impetus with this.
I am concerned, when do we expect this plan for Morton to happen?
Whilst there have been some things happening, from this report, it doesn't feel like we
are any further forward than we were potentially on the 8th of January 2024.
I wondered what impact the Government announcement on land near train stations being prime for
development and should be considered absolutely to be a focus for local plans and what the
new NPPF changes have meant to any of this. I understand it is a period of flux but I
am concerned that we don't really seem to be any further forward. But perhaps I am missing
something and if there is other documentation that I should be looking at then let me know.
I would say I did look at, I wasn't part of the planning for real thing, but I looked at all the
video from that and it looked like a fantastic event, but I was expecting to see much, much more,
if I'm going to be really honest. Yes, so on the timing of the local
Officer - 0:21:30
plan, we are, well, youactually, as you've already pointed out, the government has made some large -scale changes
to national planning policies and they have asked us to update our local development scheme
to reflect those as well. They anticipate there will be some delays because of that.
They have also made £250 ,000 worth of funding available in recognition of the delays that
national policy is going to check has caused. We bid for that and we are due to hear back
on that on 10 February. Our proposal is to take an update to the timetable for our local
Development Scheme to our 6 March cabinet meeting.
So that's been worked on at the moment.
But yeah, there has been a lot of work going on in the background, like I say.
It just seems like there's been a delay in that.
There has been slightly because of national policy updates.
So yeah, we'll have to.
We are working on this update to the local development scheme at the moment so we'll set that out.
With the government impact on train stations, we're waiting to see what that has, but from what I gather,
it's going to be what's going to be proposed in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in March,
is that there'll be a presumption in favour of development around train stations,
which is similar to I suppose what we wouldn't have if you didn't have a five
year housing answer pie or didn't pass the housing delivery test so yeah
Morton in Marsh and Kemble are two places in the district that have a
railway station so yeah we'll have to watch what's proposed there and we'll be
responding to that and consultation as well and yeah on the MPPF update yeah
it's it's gonna have a big impact the number of houses that we need to plan
for has increased from 504 houses a year to 1036 and so yeah we have to cast the
net again and look at places where we can deliver growth and and yeah that's
we were previously looking for around 3 ,500 houses I think when we last did a
plan consultation and now it's going to be considerably more so it takes time to
to find those additional houses. But what I can say is we have been prudent in
we're doing a partial update of the adopted local plan and we're doing a
development strategy in site allocations plan which has a new local plan period
and looks further ahead. But we've kept the two projects separate because we anticipated
these big changes to national planning policy. So doing that means that actually the partial
local plan update, which we're really quite far ahead at the moment and we've been working
on these draft policies, we're very close to having a what's called Regulation 19 consultation
on that, which is the third and final stage of consultation before we submit
it to the Planning Inspectorate. So yeah that has been a really good thing so
we're very close to having that ready now. That's specifically for the North
Cotswold plan because we're talking only about this not about everything so you
know our item here today is about what's happening in Everton.
So a lot of them yeah a lot of the what what's cooked in that report all the consultations
It covers some of it gives the whole of the district, but it also covers the North Cotswolds say
Thank you councillor Jenkins
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:21
Thank You chairCouncillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:25:24
Can I just first of all checkThis meeting is open. It's anyone can join in and what should I believe?
The report that's been provided is pretty minimal
and basically tells us what hopefully we would know already.
So I'm trying to get a grip on what it is you're actually trying to tell us.
Whether there is material that you cannot tell us because it's an open meeting,
and if it wasn't an open meeting you could tell us more.
But at the moment there is a series of points you made.
And I do appreciate, Matt, you've been working very hard,
and I think you've been doing, you know, very committed and so forth.
So it is in the spirit of we're on the same side trying to sort things out, but I'm asking these questions.
I'm extremely pleased to hear that you've been looking at the feasibility and recognizing that there are real feasibility issues there.
You know that, I know that, I think we all know that.
Where we stand on that, I don't know.
Where that is, is not clear.
I had hoped that maybe the fact that it wasn't in the paper,
it would be in this discussion.
Whether you're in a position to say something about that,
I don't know.
But I'm asking the question where we stand on that.
The number seems to have hardened up to 1 ,036.
The last time I saw a number, it was under 1 ,000
as a result of the change.
So that's hardened up and grown.
That's worrying.
A year ago, more than a year ago, I said that we really ought to be looking at the option
for a greenfield site for a garden village or garden town and that there were opportunities
where that could be other than around Moreton and I pushed for that at cabinet level and
amongst planners.
I have a feeling that that might be back on the card and although this is about the North
In Cotswold, clearly, there is a totality that has to be done.
And what doesn't happen there ends up at Moreton.
And what does happen there doesn't
need to end up at Moreton, bearing in mind that Moreton
also affects Stowe and other places.
So I'm wondering if you could give us
what you are in a position to tell us on that front.
Now, I've already made several points.
I haven't quite finished what I wanted to ask.
But if the chair will allow me, I'll
pause there to allow you so it doesn't get too confusing.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:27:49
I'm just going to ask Matt whether you would like to have all of Angus' contribution andqueries or would you like him to come back for a second tranche?
Officer - 0:28:00
Can I deal with the first tranche now and then go from there if that's okay?Officer - 0:28:06
I suppose you are wondering why you provide this update now. It's because essentiallywhen we, back in January last year, we made a commitment to provide an update of what's
been happening now.
I know the update is quite minimal, but that's not to say
that's the local planet evidence base that we've been
working on.
It's about 60 different documents to try and get ready.
Now, I haven't gone into detail on all of those, but
there's documents like we're working on a water cycle study,
for example, and a strategic flood risk assessment.
And now that will incorporate flooding issues and infrastructure requirements in Morton.
So will our infrastructure delivery plan, which was also being worked on at the moment.
There's numerous different documents that we're working on, which collectively form
the evidence base of the local plan.
Now, I haven't gone into detail on all of them in this report.
Kept it quite high level on intentionally and just provided with a key update.
So I hope that helps you with that one.
With the feasibility study on where we stand with it now,
so essentially we've asked the consultant to do it in two parts
and we're still waiting to hear back on part one.
First part is essentially from the outset
before we spend a load of money on development,
on this feasibility study, is development,
Is it remotely feasible?
And from a very high level perspective, whether it is feasible.
So we went back on that.
And once we get that and we get some options for where key infrastructure will be located,
how much it's going to cost, it will go into a lot more detail about setting out more specifics
on that.
With the 1036 housing need calculation that the government now provides us,
it is something I think a lot of local authorities are now in a similar situation to us, having conversations across Gloucestershire.
It is all linked primarily to the affordability of housing in the district.
and that's why it comes out as being so high.
Yeah, we are exploring all options at the moment
to try and deliver that number.
And yeah, you mentioned having a garden village elsewhere.
We're looking into the sites across the old district
where we could deliver additional growth.
So it's not just Morton.
As part of our last local plan consultation we had to do that call for sites exercise
to identify what land is available.
We were also proactively asking land owners as well.
The government has been clear that before we can potentially have a lower housing requirement
in our local plan than that 1036 figure we've got to exhaust all options and
demonstrate that we can't deliver that number.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:31:33
Well thank you for that. I'm going to come back to you Councillor Drickson. I'm going to letothers, they might be bringing up the point that you may be going to come and
so just as of the and then come back to you. So Councillor Waring please.
Councillor Jon Wareing - 0:31:46
Thank you, Chair. My appetite was whetted by the title of this when it said North Cotswolds,but particularly when I look at 1 .2 .4, when it says the study is underway, which is considering
whether strategic growth in Britain is feasible, what is the geographic scope of that study?
Does it include, do we go down to Borton? Is it considering the traffic infrastructure
of the FOSS?
Officer - 0:32:13
The second part of it includes traffic modelling, so that's on the FOSS and yes, it's primarilythough around the Morton, I don't know if you have seen the proposed development sites
in Morton in our strategic housing economic land availability assessment, but it primarily
focuses on that sort of arc of development around Morton, but the traffic modelling we'll
consider at other locations.
Now there's another piece of evidence that we have that's been undertaken called our
infrastructure delivery plan, and when we last did our local plan we did a highway capacity
assessment as well.
Now those are two other pieces of evidence that will go hand in hand with that feasibility
study.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:33:10
Councillor Turner, also a local resident, well, our member lives in Brockley, so veryclose to Moreton.
Thank you.
Councillor Clare Turner - 0:33:16
So just before we leave the feasibility study alone, I've got a quick question about that.So will the outputs from that be publicly available and published?
and what's the rough time scale for that?
The other part of my question is around the strategic housing and economic land availability assessment documents.
It would be really useful to parish councils and local communities to understand what those updated pictures look like
and particularly those that are working on neighbourhood plans or starting to think about how their communities might be impacted
and where it still might be best spent and so on.
Is there a, are they going to be published?
Is there an updated version available?
It would be very helpful to have those sooner
rather than later in the process.
Yes, in short, they will be published.
Officer - 0:34:08
We publish all our evidence as soon as it's completed.It goes on to the evidence base
and monitoring page of our website.
Yes, I also agree. I would like these yesterday if possible.
I don't have a indicative deadline for when they will be published, particularly the Schlar.
We're waiting on a landscape officer at the council to be appointed, advertised, interviewed and then appointed.
If not, we have to go up to consultants to get that work done.
So we are kind of dependent on that.
With the feasibility study, it's been undertaken by Gloucester County Council and their consultants.
We are kind of, yeah, we are beholden to them really on that.
So they are working on it at the moment.
But I am afraid I don't have an exhaustive date of when that is going to be done yet.
Thank you. Councillor Cunningham.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:35:13
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:35:15
Thank you, Chair. Who is doing this study? Specifically, which company have you used to do the study?Officer - 0:35:27
The feasibility study is Gloucester County Council. It's been commissioned to do it, essentially. So it's their staff.So it's not an outside consultant that you're using?
No.
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:35:38
How short are we from the 1036 a year number?Officer - 0:35:49
Well, I don't know at the moment. As part of our shla, we have to find... the job ofthe shla is to identify deliverable and developable sites. And so once we've completed that piece
work we will understand the picture essentially on what land we have that
could contribute towards delivering that number and then I'll be able to say where
we're at. I know we update annually our housing and supply
report as you probably know and that sets out the supply that we've already got
from our adopted local plan, sites with planning commission and sites that are
expected to be delivered as windfall sites that don't have planning permission yet, but
we know they're going to get planning permission in the future.
So I've got that at the moment.
The bit that I'm missing is this, okay, well, where are the next local plan site allocations
going to be?
That's what we're working on at the moment.
Okay, thanks.
Councillor David Cunningham - 0:36:51
He's answered my questions as I've gone along, so I mean, I could have just asked them allin one go, but I've got more, that's all.
So when do you think you're going to go to Reg 19?
Are we working just off of the 31 Local Plan now?
Or are we going to continue out to the 41 Local Plan?
And finally, will you publish the shalar before you put the updated Local Plan out?
Officer - 0:37:23
If I could answer those in slightly reverse order.Yes, we are still doing both local plan projects.
One of them is a partial update of our adopted local plan and one of them is a development
strategy and site allocation plan which essentially extends the local plan period, looks at the
requirements for different types of development and infrastructure and sets out how and where
that is going to be delivered.
So the two parts of a single local plan which have been done separately which we hope to
put together at a later date.
So yes, we are still working on both of those projects at the moment.
With the Regulation 19 consultation, we are aiming to do that this year.
We are working on an update to our local development scheme which will be presented to cabinet
in March.
I will be able to tell you more then, exactly, but we don't have the specific dates to hand
at the moment.
It also depends whether we get this £250 ,000 grant from the government, which will have
a big impact.
We are also potentially looking to accelerate the delivery of the local plan independently
of that as well.
So, yes, putting together a proposal on that.
So, yes, there is a bit in the air, but I will hopefully be able to provide a more definite
update on that point in March.
Thank you.
Councillor Fowles.
When I first saw this report at lunchtime, I wondered what the update on strategic plan
for North Cotswolds was because it was a title I was unfamiliar with, North Cotswolds, which
is picking up directly on what the chairman said earlier.
I don't think it's a very helpful title.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:39:27
I would have thought as a suggestion it might be better to have a title that says updateon the local plan hyphen strategic housing plan for Morton in the Marsh
because it's neither the local plan nor Morton in the Marsh. It sort of skirts
in the middle of it because it's actually a subset of the overall local
plan isn't it? Am I understanding that correctly? It's a specific thing
you're looking at within the local plan. Yeah that's first question. Yes I agree
Officer - 0:39:55
I'm sorry it's a hangover from January last year that the title that wecommitted to provide an update on the strategic plan for the North Cotswolds.
So that was the title for the report. But yes, it is just an update on
proposals in the North Cotswolds that are part of the local plan rather than a
local plan for the North Cotswolds. Well it could be that if you're in the South
Cotswolds you might think, ah, there's no development plan for the South Cotswolds,
Councillor David Fowles - 0:40:27
it's all going to be in the North Cotswolds, just an observation. The secondThe second question is, when it comes to the terms of reference,
which is referred to in 126, which says suggested
alterations to the working group terms of reference,
is it the intention that this working group will actually
have a statutory consultation function when it comes to the
planning process, or is it actually,
and I don't know the detail, or was it too early to say,
Are we creating something new in planning terms that could have teeth when one looks
at the possible development of housing in Moreton?
Because I can see it can work both ways.
If it doesn't, then there are going to be people on that working group who are going
to say, what are we doing this for?
And if it does, it's creating a huge precedent.
Potentially the other statutory consortees, particularly the town council, could have
some interesting things to say.
So do you have a view on that at this stage?
Officer - 0:41:34
So, I mean, the terms of reference now have been agreedat the full council meeting.
I just don't recall them in detail.
I just wonder whether it's statutory.
Is it statutory consulting?
So, no, from the top of my head,
I'd have to refer back to the terms of reference.
So apologies if I've got this wrong.
But I think it was there where it can make recommendations
to cabinet and council but it's not a statutory consortee.
I forgot that.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:42:11
Last question is, in a situation where I remember back a few years to the whole situation whenit came to Save Our Sire ancestor and the development of Bathurst and the tensions that
flew off the back of that.
And so had we had something like this as a working group then,
maybe things could have developed in a more constructive
way between the town and all the people who were stakeholders
in it and us as a local authority.
So is this potentially a precedent if we were to see
development in other key settlements in the Cotswolds
that we would be supportive of, say, a Tepary working group
for a Fairford -led working group,
just saying, you know,
the siren system was huge development there,
but for whatever reason, we didn't set up a working group.
And here we are with Morton,
nonetheless as huge in the context of Morton,
but I'm assuming that potentially
we could have other big developments elsewhere
in the Cotswolds looking to the future.
And this is something that we would support,
these kind of working group initiatives.
Officer - 0:43:21
Potentially, yeah. We are, I mean the whole idea of this working group is to get genuineengagement with the community and get ideas and feedback on proposals. So yeah, I think
the idea of it is something we really want to deliver. So yeah, we'd have to look at
what's proposed in the future and make a decision then.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:43:46
Well, thank you for that. All I was going to say is that with the coming of unitaries,this was set up before we thought about those. I'm not saying that has a particular effect.
I appreciate the unitaries, but we're all second -guessing the unitaries, Chairman. I
was thinking more in the context of what happened in our ancestor. It didn't happen.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:44:06
No, I quite get your point. I think community and local involvement in these big thingsis always desirable and helpful. So it's Councillor Selwyn.
Respond to Councillor Thao's last observation about sciences,
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:44:19
but perhaps we'll have a talk outside the meeting about that.I was just reflecting on something that, and this is not a job for ONS, but I just want to pick up
a couple of threads that have been mentioned indeed by the Chair in her opening comments
and endorsed by Councillor Waring. And I've had conversations with other members
recently in that you introduced it as its absolute hell to drive down the Fos
way because the development and has been for most of the past year
similarly in Saren says to the fire station roundabout and the little works
on the next one has created havoc as well and and yet corporate priorities
two of our corporate parts at the bottom there are supporting communities and
supporting the economy one of the things that I will take away from this meeting
is potentially to have a chat with the cabinet member for planning because although we can
put constraints and caveats on planning what we don't factor in is the sheer havoc to people
trying to navigate their way through Malton as a result of development that we have authorised
but not in such a way that we have any control and constraints over how they close the roads,
when they close the roads, the sheer level of inconvenience to the communities and the
and I think we might have fallen down a bit of a black hole in that whilst we
will grant permission what we're not particularly clear on is what constraints
we put in developers about when they close off major roads I know that little
lost 35 % of its trade for two months in a row as a result of incorrectly phased
traffic management I'm sure the same has actually happened for traders in Morton
or indeed the public driving through Morton.
So coming out from this, rest assured, nothing to do with you,
but I will take away that fact and perhaps have a dialogue with the cabinet member for planning,
just so we can factor in perhaps more awareness of what we permit at planning
and how that is allowed to happen, given that the end result is what you referred to in the book
that's been going on for much of the last year.
Whenever I have to travel North Cotswolds, I add on 20 minutes generally to my perceived journey time,
and times that by multiple thousands of people in a week, and you end up with arguably not supporting communities,
and arguably not supporting the economy in quite the way that we could.
So I will take that offline, and perhaps I'll report back the next time we get together. Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:49
Thank you. It's absolutely true. The implications of the knock -on effect of these things, andit does affect the economy. In Morton, of course, it affects access to the hospital
as well.
Councillor Jinkison, I said I would come back to you.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:47:07
Thank you, Chair. You said, Matt, that you would be bringing Regulation 19 informationto Cabinet in March. I believe it needs to come to us in advance. Normally we preview
things that are going to Cabinet for their approval. We obviously haven't seen any substance
at the moment and I don't see it in the work plan for later in February or in March. So
can I ask you when that's going to be published and whether you've scheduled it with Democratic
services to come to overview and scrutiny?
Officer - 0:47:46
Sorry, earlier on I think I said our local development scheme we bring into the Marchcabinet, so that's the timetable for when we set out when the different local plan documents
will be delivered. Yes, that's been added to the forward plan.
For us?
I'm not sure.
As of this morning.
It has been added to the full plan for cabinet whether the committee want to look at the
timetable, the local development scheme, that is a matter for you as a committee.
And then the regulation 19 consultation is not going to be in March, it will come out
after that.
But it will be set out in the local development scheme when we intend to do that.
When do you intend to do it?
I don't know yet. We're working on that at the moment in the local development scheme.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:48:44
Okay. So at the moment you're doing a partial update for 31 as opposed to the full update for the new plan to take us up to the 2040s.Can I ask you to give us a breakdown on what, in terms of the implication for the North
Cotswolds, is retained in the partial update versus what was?
Because an important part of the discussion that was given when we met with members of
the local town was that this was a plan to take up to 2041 and it was a consultation
for something that would stretch over a long period.
So now this is not such a long period that's being talked about, so it would be good to get a sense of what the scale is that's being envisaged in the relatively short term.
Officer - 0:49:38
Yes, so, just on the terminology, so we're doing a partial local plan update of the adopted local plan 2011 to 2031.and we're also doing a development strategy and site allocations plan so
that's that's if it's slightly different from a full update which is like if you
were going to do the whole lot all in one together so they're two distinct
projects part of the same local plan though and so yes in terms of proposals
in Mortons Marsh so the partial local plan update that included an additional
the Fire Service College for those 310 houses and additional employment land.
That's included in the partial local plan update.
But in the development strategy and site allocations plan,
that's, well, I've been told actually it's probably going to look further than 2041 now,
because you've got to plan 15 years from the adoption of the local plan.
So actually it's probably going to be a little bit further ahead than 2041.
So is your question, what's the scale of development going to be now that we've got the new housing need number?
Specifically I'm trying to at this moment, the first stage is, are you going to assume approval of 310 for Fire Service College?
there's a block of land from Lord Dulverton that would be another 400
houses and we're going to approve 250 over there so that's going to be 800
approved in the next few years, next five years or is it 310 and that's it in terms
of the forward plan? What's the scale? Yeah okay so sorry I understand the question a
bit more now. So it's essentially the proposal is still to include that 310
houses in the partial local plan update. When we included in the last
local plan consultation that proposal for one and a half thousand houses that was
based largely on our currently published strategic housing
economic land availability assessment. Now we've done that
call for sites and we're looking at that we know that there's some further land
that's come forward, so it could potentially increase.
But what we have to work out first
is whether the development is feasible there,
because we know from our last local plan,
for example, the highway issue,
we knew from our last local plan
that if you delivered everything that was proposed
in the last local plan, the junctions,
the two mini roundabouts and the railway bridge
would be at capacity and there'd be improvement needed to the highway infrastructure.
Now, we know that there's been some changes to travel patterns due to COVID and more people working at home and different things.
So we're looking at again to update that evidence, but we strongly suspect that additional growth in Moreton is going to require a new road at this point.
So you are asking how many more houses or how much more development can take place in
Moreton.
It does depend on the outcome of that feasibility study.
It might be that a little bit more can go ahead.
It might be that a reasonable amount more in the next few years can go ahead.
But we need that feasibility study to tell us.
What we're very keen on is what we don't want to happen is developments come forward that's not done in accordance with the strategic plan.
Because we know that that happened in the past when the council didn't have a five -year housing land supply.
You get those piecemeal developments going on.
What we need to make sure is that if further development does come forward in Morton, it
happens in a coordinated and structured way that it contributes towards the cost of infrastructure
that's going to be required.
That feasibility study is going to be a key piece of evidence, as is the infrastructure
delivery plan and other pieces of evidence.
So yeah, I don't have the exact figure for you at the moment
about how much more development is going to come forward
in the short term.
But that's where we're at.
OK, so on the feasibility, we haven't actually
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:54:28
had a formal presentation of the Fire Service College plan.310 property is a proposal, and it's
being thought into the area plan.
But it's not actually being brought forward.
If it was brought forward right now,
I think there'd be an inclination amongst some people to raise an objection immediately.
I'd certainly take that seriously on the grounds that we have an absolute limit on the sewage
treatment works.
We've already topped the limit on that.
And the Environment Agency is inspecting other problems which you are familiar with.
Under those circumstances, the feasibility plan is presumably needed before we're able
to even agree to any further development other than the odd house in the town?
Officer - 0:55:13
Well, our position on this at the moment is, as I say, we know that further growth in waterwe strongly suspect can't occur without it having a really harmful impact on the highway
system and the infrastructure, the sewer system that you mentioned as well.
The thing that could sort of take it out of our control really is if we didn't have a
five year housing land supply or if we did pass the housing delivery test in future or
if the government brings in this new rule for a presumption in favour of development
around railway stations, then the developer would have to prove that their development
is sustainable in accordance with national policies. That would be the test really. So
obviously we want to make sure that there is a plan in place that doesn't allow that
to happen and if a development were to come forward now, we would object to it on the
basis that it is premature.
Thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:56:33
Councillor Jenkinson, I am the Chair.I am entitled to, you have had a long discussion.
Excuse me, I asked if you wanted me to wait.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:56:43
You allowed Councillor Cunningham to ask a whole series of questions, one after the other.You invited another councillor to ask questions one
after another.
This is my ward where most of this development
is taking place.
I'm asking some questions.
Are you really going to stop me again?
You did last time.
Councillor Jenkins, I know.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:57:02
Actually, you have exceeded the number of questionsthat Councillor Cunningham asked by a long way.
Well, that may be the case.
But actually, what I really would suggest
is helpful, because I think you've got a lot of things
that you really need to understand and drill down to,
is if you are offline actually had a conversation with Matt Britain,
who I'm sure would be able to guide you through the complications of the system.
I feel that that was going to be more constructive.
This is...
And you've got...
This meeting isn't for...
We could all have a long discussion on this,
but we have got another very important item,
the draft budget and the MTFS and in reality I really feel that it could be
useful and you could come back and share with us whatever else you've discovered
about Morton. I think it's incredibly important, I think it's important that
you're fully knowledgeable of what's going on but I think this is the time
now to call this one to an end.
I just wanted to...
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:58:12
Thank you, Chair. I do think I'm going to be leaving out some important things.The last question is this.
The initial plan for the Working Group was for it to take place its first meeting in May of last year.
At the moment you're talking about the meeting taking place at the end of March in this year.
During the course of the time between May and March, there have been all kinds of local initiatives taken.
During that time, we did very little to actually provide an opportunity for members of the community to take part
in an educated, informed process to review and therefore help the whole town to take place.
In the Council meeting, we agreed that it was going to be important to educate the people who were coming,
and train them, give them the background knowledge that they needed to be able to participate
well. I'd like to ask you, if we're not actually meeting till March, which is after you've
already brought the next stage forward to the Cabinet, when are we actually going to
start scheduling to bring the group together and provide them with a training plan so that
they can provide, they can get the meaningful information that they need in order to be
effective for us and for them and for the local community.
Officer - 0:59:32
In the working group terms of reference,we set out that the working group would meet up
to four times a year.
And so we, from March, wanting to sort of set that program,
like get that running, we really apologize
for the amount of time it's taken to get to where we are
now.
We've had various members of staff who have left.
and we've had to, as you can imagine, find a lot of work to do.
But anyway, we are where we are with it.
So from March, we will set up that programme of getting those regular working group meetings.
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:00:08
I'm talking about giving some, in addition to the meeting, which is substantive,designing something so that people actually get the background so that in the meeting,
It's actually meaningful that they understand the issues, that they've got a bit of education,
that they've seen what can be done in development and so forth.
Why can't we do that now?
Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:00:31
Officer - 1:00:35
I'll take that away and see what we can do.Right, well thank you.
Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:00:41
I just had this title of it.You know, North Cotswolds is now a constituency, and South Cotswolds, referred to by Councillor
Folles, is another constituency, and I think what it really means is north of the Cotswold
district as opposed to, so it is, that is now because of the constituency name changes
is a bit of a confusion. I just wanted to ask one question, which is,
rather say, we decide and agree on certain planning applications and for a lot of houses
which is fine, but what happens if not enough developers step up to buy those developments
and wish to develop them in a timely way, just because there is so much development
going over all the country, that developers don't have endless resources, manpower, materials,
time, skills, all that, necessarily to be able to carry out all this building in a short
time. What is the penalty for us if, although we've given permission for the statutory number
of houses to fulfil the government's requirement, we've agreed, but there aren't sufficient
developers and things to take up that actual development?
Officer - 1:01:57
I suppose in one sense we are quite lucky in the COTS world where because housing affordabilityis such an issue, actually one of the benefits from that is that developers want to build
here and they are falling over each other to deliver housing developments here.
What we find is that when sites get planning permission in general they are built out very
quickly and actually delivering housing isn't a so much of an issue. So one of
the problems we have though the steadings has been probably an exception
to that where actually the delivery of the infrastructure there has meant
well there's various reasons but the steadings has been delayed but in terms
of the actual penalties so everyone is probably familiar with the five -year
housing land supply that we've got to demonstrate but there's also I think in
2018 the government introduced the housing delivery test so we also have to
Webcast Finished - 1:03:06
deliver. We'll be in this back in this chamber when we'll be making thedecision on our budget and on the council tax for next year.
Still having a little bit of fun trying to get it up on the screen.
So nearly there.
So I keep talking breaking news.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Right.
Here we go.
So okay, so that's today and what we're David and I going to talk about is the budget and
the MTFS medium -term financial strategy.
Next slide, please.
Do you want to say something?
I was just going to continue the theme that I had at the audit and governance committee
and apologise profusely to members for the lateness of this report.
In mitigation, I was late with the audit and governance reports and I have been late with
number of reports this can't continue and certainly that's something I'll be
discussing with Robert Weaver the Chief Exec and Mike to ensure that we've got a
more timely way that this information can come forward and that may involve
changing the way in which some of the draft budget is prepared because it
wasn't adequate gap between those. The cabinet report is the same version that
you've got in front of you tonight the only difference between the cabinet
report and this report is some additional annexes were made available
late on Friday. The current draft of the report that you've got was completed at
2 .45 on Thursday morning and don't intend to change it until the council
version of the report. So any comments members have got or recommendations that
members of this committee want to make to cabinet I'm sure will be gratefully
received and we can incorporate any of those that cabinet feel is appropriate
into the next version of the report that will be prepared for the council meeting on the 24th of February.
Thanks David. Oh, breaking news. So we've had the actual settlement, the final settlement announcement today, I think, David, haven't we?
So what happens is that we always get provisional settlement in terms of how much money the government is going to give us in December.
And then we get the final settlement in January normally, but it's actually the 3rd of February today.
So it's arrived even a little bit later than usual.
So David, do you want to tell us about that?
The only material change between provisional and
final is the government provided information on how
the employer national insurance contributions
would be distributed.
So there's a 502 million pound pot that they've
distributed to authorities.
The draft MTFS that's included within your PACS
includes an initial assessment of 142 ,000,
The actual amount we will receive is 133 ,000.
So we're 9 ,000 worse off than we thought we would be on the national insurance change.
And as you look, those of you who've had chance to look at the papers will see that what we're not getting is full funding for the national insurance increase that's coming in April.
I think we're roundabout from memory and Dave will correct me if I'm wrong
About three hundred thousand pounds short of what actually it's going to cost us
so that three hundred thousand pounds is obviously extra funding that
Yeah, we're gonna have we have to find within our resources from April that we don't have to find in the current year
So yeah, the headline summary is that you know, essentially our budget that we're being asked to agree for next year
OK is a summary to say essentially that we can meet our obligations, we can deliver our
services, we can work on our priorities and have a revenue budget that is actually in
this draft budget in surplus by approximately half a million pounds.
And some of you may remember we had a resolution at Council which I moved just over a year
ago to say that we needed to deliver surpluses both in this financial year and next financial
year because of what was coming down the tracks. And it's coming now, as you can see in the
slide, we have the issue is from 26, 27. And clearly what we need to look at is obviously
the impact of decisions that we're taking now and through the next year and can we afford
them in the short and medium term. And obviously we're all aware that we may not last longer
than another three years as a council.
And obviously what we've had at the moment is a white paper before Christmas and we don't
have the bill yet and it's not an act yet.
So things still could change and we still have to demonstrate within the papers that
we are able to be a going concern and operate as a council in the MTFS time horizon sort
of four or five years into the future.
There's the next one.
The big headline won't be a surprise to those of you who have been following this, most
of you obviously on this committee, is that what looks like it's coming down the tracks
is a £3 million reduction in the funding that we get from the government. So at the
moment we get just over £5 million and we're now, if it gets benchmarked back as we pixel
our professional advisors forecast,
we'd be looking at not much more than two million.
And obviously that's a massive hit
on a net budget of 15 million.
So yeah, very serious impact on our finances.
This has been on the cards for a long time,
but the government also consulted before Christmas
on the financial reforms.
and what we don't know is the devolution agenda which I just mentioned and local
government reorganization it's em to look how that will work through and also
how much protection will be provided to councils like us that are losing out and
it will be largely district councils that are losing out it's clear that the
government is looking to move supports to higher need,
lower tax base authorities from lower need,
higher tax base authorities such as ourselves.
So yeah, I think that obviously is a key factor
in what we're looking at in terms of the MTFS
in this report.
Go to the next one.
And so we need to focus on savings and cost reductions.
You know, we can't assume that we don't need to do that.
We will need to do that, even with the assumptions that are in this report.
And we might ask, you might want a question about that, or David might go a bit more detail
in that.
But essentially, we've got a budget gap from not next year, but the year after.
And we've got to work to close that gap to be able to continue to provide services that
residents in the district expect.
David, I think we're handing over to you now on time.
David
Thank you Mike.
So just a little bit more detail on what was in the local government finance settlement.
So for districts, we were the worst off in terms of what we got out of that.
So it wasn't until the government included council tax increases in their assessment
of core spending power that we saw an increase.
And that increase was only 0 .32 % across all
of the Shire District Councils, or 164 of them.
132 of them received the same that we got,
which was that third public point down, a 0 % increase
or a 0 % decrease, depending on your point of view.
It was cash flat.
So the impact of inflation wasn't recognized
in that funding floor. In previous years that funding floor has given a degree of
protection to authorities. It was set at 4 % in the previous year. It was set quite
clearly at 0 % for this coming financial year. The other key headline for us is
Rural Services Delivery Grant was abolished. That wasn't something that was
consulted about. It wasn't something that had been widely talked about by the
government, that was worth £818 ,000 to us a year.
And there is no clear replacement for that, although the government will say that sparsity
and morality will be taken into account as part of the local government finance reforms.
But overnight, a number of authorities saw quite significant streams of funding from
rural services disappear.
So us, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, and so on.
New Homes Bonus, there is another year of that.
You could see that one number mitigates the other, but it's one year only.
It won't continue.
This is the fifth year of a one -year -only version of New Homes Bonus.
At its peak, it was worth $3 .5 million in terms of the funding stream for this council.
The saviour of, I suppose, the funding position is extended producer responsibility.
So that is outside of core spending power.
So it is not part of what the government assesses in terms of that 0 % increase, but then the
caveat that's put round that within the local government finance settlement report is the
government take into account all the funding a council gets when looking at the level of
resources it might be allocating.
So one and a half million is the funding that's coming from DEFRA to support the council with
costs of dealing with packaging in the waste system.
And it will all depend on your relative starting point as a council, so if you're already collecting
a lot of that and paying for that through various contracts, that might be seen as additional
funding.
We've taken a reasonably prudent view that one and a half million is probably towards
the upper end of what we could expect to have received.
We have set aside around 300 ,000 pounds of that into a reserve, because there is a risk
of clawback from the government on this.
if we don't demonstrate or don't spend it all.
Demonstrate as in demonstrating that we are dealing
with the waste stream in relation to packaging.
As Councillor Evermy said, local government finance reforms
for the following year are subject to consultation.
That consultation will close on the 12th of February
and that is essentially the change
that will see significant reductions in the level of support the council will get from
central government, previously known as the fair funding review.
It will include a reset of the business rates retention system.
So the forecast for the business rates this council will retain for next year is 5 .1 million.
With that hard reset, which is required as part of those local government finance reforms,
we would see that number reduced to something like 2 .3 million.
So all the growth that we've accumulated since 2013 -14 when business rates retention was first introduced
gets wiped away and you start from a zero base in terms of growth again.
The challenge with that will be where would that growth be coming from for an authority such as ourselves
where you've got 80 % of the area of outstanding natural beauty
and limited ability to attract new businesses to the district that are probably outside of the core of what we already offer.
So we're not going to be in competition with the likes of Cheltenham and Gloucester trying to get business parks built into the district,
as that doesn't fit in with where the local plan is in terms of employment opportunities.
And you have to view the whole of the local government finance settlement slightly through the lens of the devolution white paper
that came out a few days prior to this.
With a limited shelf life for district councils,
that may indicate that the local government finance reforms
that will kick in next year are not going
to be particularly generous to shyer districts.
And that might give you a sense of the level of ongoing support
that we'll get coming through.
MTFS position, let's set out in the report,
says we've got a balanced budget.
That's the key thing.
are okay in this respect means we've balanced the budget but we are actually
projecting at this stage a surplus of just over 600 ,000 but over the MTFS
period a significant gap opens up so in 26 -27 because of that reduction in
funding that is assumed we will see a one and a half million pound gap
increasing quite substantially in 27 -28 to a 4 .8 million pound gap. We're
reserves to support the MTFS in 25, 26 and 26, 27.
Financial resilience reserve, which members will
recall was set up specifically to enable the
MTFS to receive a degree of support to avoid, I
suppose, that cliff edge and to allow decisions to
be taken in a reasonable amount of time to avoid, I
suppose, a knee -jerk reaction to the way
services are provided.
And the business rate risk reserve is also being utilized.
members may recall that at this point last year we were projecting quite a
significant increase in the level of business rates for the 24 -25 and we were
in surplus on the collection fund over 23 -24. We set aside that additional
amount of money in a business rates risk reserve because of those cyclical
fluctuations that you can get year by year so we are bringing in into the 25 -26
budget 809 ,000 of the business rates risk reserve to mitigate the current
position on the collection fund of business rates which is showing our
share of a significant deficit of a hundred and eight hundred and nine
thousand so we are using that funding that we've set aside in previous years
to manage and smooth out the business rates risk and it is absolutely
important that we reduce that expenditure and that an increase income
over the MTFS period to ensure we can remain balanced and the position I suppose the MTFS is taking is
Regardless of what happens in terms of the timing of local government reorganization and devolution
This council has still got to demonstrate it is financially sustainable
And that's the premise the MTFS has been prepared on
And pleased to know a couple more slides what's in the budget a five -pound council tax increase is in the budget
We have included the impact of second homes.
So that was the decision that council took in March of last year to charge that premium.
We have taken a very prudent estimate in line with other local authorities in Gloucestershire.
There is more work to do because identifying the second homes at the moment relies on the council tax system
and not every second home owner would have notified revenues and benefits that they have a second home.
So there's quite a bit of work to do matching off planning data against the revenues data
and identifying the extent of those second homes, particularly those second homes around Cotswold Lakes
as they are likely to have exemptions applied to them given their purpose built second homes
and there is restrictions on their occupation.
As trailed earlier, the impact of employers' national insurance contributions for this council is around about 400 ,000.
The level of funding that we're getting from the government is 133 ,000.
So there is a gap that will be hard baked into the MTFS each and every year from 25, 26.
Car park fees, we are freezing the car park fees as a council for those stays of up to one hour.
And there is a moderate inflationary increase for stays of two hours or more and that was
a very deliberate review of those car park fees and tariffs.
Garden waste fees will be increased to maintain a cost recovery position and I have included
within the report updated estimates on phase one of the public review and a position on
the estimates for phase two and how they would be funded.
The final slide on this is what I suppose I call the risk and uncertainty.
So within the MTFS there are a number of estimates that might be more uncertain than others.
In fact, anything beyond the forthcoming financial year is more uncertain than anything else.
But specifically the MTFS includes a forward projection of funding from extended producer
responsibility which DEFRA has indicated will be an ongoing revenue stream.
it is very difficult to assess what that revenue stream will be because that relies on
producers using the same packaging and paying into a central pot and then the central pot being distributed.
It is for the purposes of the MTFS assumed it is half of the current year's estimates of 750 ,000 on an ongoing basis.
Expectation of reduced employer pension contributions. So within the MTFS I have
estimated that there will be a half a million pound reduction in the level of
employer pension contributions that the council will make following the next
triennial review which kicks off on the 31st of March. We have had detailed
engagement with Gloucestershire County Council's pensions team and the actuary
to estimate the current position on a midpoint basis that indicates that the
pension fund is 140 % funded.
At the last triennial review in 2022,
it was around about 90 % funded.
So in order to ensure that we're not overfunding
the pension fund, we are reducing the amount
of funding certainty to 120%.
And that difference is what is assumed in the MTFS.
More will be known for certain in the autumn of this year,
once we get the results of the triennial valuation.
but that's not a, that's a position common across the whole of the Gloucestershire authorities
and common across LGPS in general.
Finally, transitional protection.
I've assumed a quick transfer of funding, so I've assumed those changes that will start
in 2026, 27 will be completed by 28, 29.
That's largely based on a view from the previous government that previous local government
finance reforms have taken too long to work through.
So if you're a council that's desperate for
additional funding, you don't really want to wait
six, seven, eight years for that to come through in full.
But similarly, if you're an authority that's losing
funding, you don't want that to happen in one or two years.
So there's a balance that the government will need to strike.
And I suppose that might be linked to local government
reform and devolution.
And the final point on there was one I added just for
recognizing that we are keeping an eye on global events.
So our trade wars in the global economy are a risk to the MTFS,
given the inflationary pressure that may introduce.
Right.
Well, thank you, Mike.
And thank you, David.
Yes, thank you.
You've done the presentation.
You're both ready for the questions.
I'm sure there will be plenty.
I have Councillor Waring up first.
A very simple question. Can we have a copy of the debt?
It was my first question but I have a second one.
The waste, the capital waste project, is that urgent?
Because it's a big number, right?
So is that essential that it happens in the year that it's in?
It's a good question John. I think with my former hat on as a cabinet member for waste and recycling, I remember having those conversations with officers about the lifespan of vehicles.
and that typically being seven years. Obviously what we are doing is, and I think
Councillor McEwen is involved in this as well, is looking at how we can move away
from a carbon intensive fleet to a carbon zero fleet and that may include
extending the life of our current fleet in order to come to a point where we can make
that transition more smoothly. So I don't know if David's got anything to add. I don't
know. It's clearly in there in the capital programme because it's seven years since we
bought the last large volume of vehicles. But I'll hand to David to give any further
information on that. So just in terms of the capital program we have assumed
based on the vehicle replacement program that we would need to replace those
vehicles given they will have been around for six or seven years. That does
lead to that spike in a capital program that would require the council to borrow
and I think given the impact borrowing would have on the council's finances
which are included in the MTFS, we have assumed that, that it would not be unreasonable to
review, I suppose, that vehicle replacement program and see how you can extend the life
of those vehicles and how you can mitigate that sort of peak.
There are options available, so it might be that rather than purchasing vehicles for £250 ,000
each, which have a six -month lead time, that there are ways to mitigate that, which we've
been in conversation with UBCO with around longer term hires for vehicles.
But there's also the opportunity with UBCO providing services across the old Gloucestershire
to look at the wider fleet.
And there might be some opportunity to acquire nearly new vehicles from other local authorities
that might want to move towards a more carbon neutral fleet.
and we take some of their older diesel fleet whilst we then consider what the options are.
So there's a number of things that we'll look at, but clearly we need to ensure that we're making choices,
both in terms of the climate impact and also the finances of the council.
If I can just add one last bit to that is, you know, that might be something like, you know,
where Cheltenham and Gloucester, they don't drive a lot of miles in Cheltenham and Gloucester,
but they use the tipping on the back a lot.
Obviously, we're the opposite.
We drive a lot of miles with our vehicles,
but the actual operation of the refuse part of the vehicles
isn't so much.
So there might be opportunities there,
and we need to look at that, obviously,
before we press the button on what
is a very large capital expenditure,
both for the county and obviously
looking at the financial and the climate change
effects of that.
Thank you.
I thought I was going to have a forest of arms asking the Councillor
Fowles, but I'm sure other people have questions too.
Well, in the light of the ongoing discussions we're having about the unitary,
I mean, all the things that you've just said in response to Councillor Waring's
question almost suggests that the unitary is not, you know,
thing that we can't really focus on,
but surely it makes significant difference that the reality is we won't,
I think we all assume we're not going to be here in two to three years' time.
So doesn't that really make us refocus our thinking
about what we've got to do with these vehicles?
Why would, in terms of looking at leasing or hiring, long -term hiring,
rather than spending a huge sum of money in terms of our capital?
I'm just asking a sort of maybe a rather naive question,
but on the one hand, I should, by the way, thank you, David,
for the clarity of your presentation,
most of which I think I understood, but some of it, the language is a bit complicated,
little old me.
But it's this thing, we've got to have a balanced budget on the one hand, yet we're staring
at the reality of us not existing.
And when it comes to something like this, surely we should be rethinking that.
I think, yeah, I get it, I get the point.
Yeah, clearly, obviously, we only had that announcement
from the government just over a month ago.
We have to set a budget for next year.
We will have a bill.
We will know, hopefully soon, whether Gloucestershire
is in the first wave or not.
So, potentially, the end date of this council could be in 2027,
or it could be in 2028, on the basis that the White Paper
is legislated for, which is reasonable to expect
when you have a government with a large majority.
I think what we need to reflect on that is that, well,
we have an obligation in that process
to maintain the services to our residents.
And what I think we can't do is, you know,
basically run our vehicles into the ground
so the service falls over on day one of the new council.
So there's a responsibility that we have to our residents,
and we're going to have to look at those decisions
about capital investment particularly
and services is to whether it's prudent,
what those, looking at what other councils are doing,
that when we know whether we're,
which other councils we might be joining up with,
we as the collective we,
we'll have to look at the resources available
and there'll be a lot of work that will go on to determine that.
And we'll have to make decisions
about our future service provision in light of that.
So there's an awful lot of imponderables
that will hopefully become clearer once we have a decision around
Are we going to continue as a council and if not when will we cease and who?
Where will it be a one council for Gloucestershire or two with the two alternatives that seem to be to being discussed a lot
A lot to go forward but in terms of our financial planning
I think you know what we're doing now as preparing a budget for next year
When we're sitting here in the autumn with our draft MTFS and you're asking us quick little hope that things will be a lot clearer by
then
and our officers will have had the time to be able to have those conversations with their peers at other councils
and we'll know and we'll be able to start this conversation in seven or eight months time
I think will be much more fruitful and speculation than all that we can do at the moment.
I wasn't suggesting running them into the ground, I was just suggesting a fundamental decision about leasing them or hiring them in the long term
as opposed to buying new vehicles.
That's all I was suggesting.
Yeah, but the point I think is that if you hire them,
that costs more.
So, and the question is, did you buy them with our resources
and pass them over to the new council?
It depends on what service the new council is going to run.
So, it's all that imponderable that will have to be worked through.
And I think at this point, we're not in a position
to be able to answer those questions.
Only to say that, you know, David and myself,
with our current hats on,
are going to be looking obviously at the financial viability of what we do and obviously if we
Spend five million pounds on refuse vehicles. That's a lot of money
That will either have to come from our capital receipts some of it
We will have to borrow so obviously we won't want to do that unless we think there's that's the the most
Prudent and sensible way forward for the council
Thank you um councillor Jenkins
Thank You chair
David, thank you for another thorough piece of work, as usual.
It's much appreciated.
Before getting to my key question, I just want to comment that there's quite a lot of
terminology that might benefit from a glossary that's just provided every time, because there
were terms that I'd never heard of and had to look up, and not always with great success.
It would be just useful to have a glossary there.
I also think on a long -term basis, but it's not the focus of my question, but I think
on a long -term basis it would be useful, if there is a long -term basis, to have a breakdown
of the budget that takes a look at how it is allocated according to what we do with
it, where the services go, where the money goes.
Not a revenue breakdown and not a simple, but how do we, what do we do with this in
terms of activity?
But there's a lot of data here and it came through quite late and I had quite a long
evening going through it with pleasure.
So at the end of the day what I'd like to do is to focus on one key strategic question.
It does in a way pick up from what Councillor Fowles has just brought.
We basically, without going into all of the details, my research suggests that district
councils may have discretionary options with respect to the strategic use of reserves in
the present circumstances.
The present circumstances are created by the devolution bill.
In general, authorities have discretion in determining the appropriate level of reserves
based on their financial circumstances and risks, as you have been discussing with us.
In the special situation in which they are not intending to be an ongoing authority,
this seems to have certain implications.
These are special circumstances.
For example, a balanced budget involves having a cost and income base
which, based on recurring costs and income, is going to be viable.
We don't have a number of recurring costs because we are not going to be a recurring council,
as far as I can understand.
My question therefore is that based on these factors, my understanding is that authorities such as ours might use their reserves,
they might use their earmarked reserves to fund off one -off costs for service improvements.
They might use them to allocate reserves to clear deferred maintenance or upgrade critical infrastructure.
We have such things.
They might use it to fund transition teams and planning efforts, ensuring smooth integration.
They might use it to invest in visible community projects that have a terminal period.
And obviously this could mean that we could be designing something so that the seat of
Cotswold District Council is in a better shape to go into a unitary authority.
Personally, I can see potential such as making a difference to the very considerable backlog
of compliance cases.
And I'm sure that cabinet members generally could come up with a number of possible options
for how money could be allocated from the reserves in order to address the situation in Cotswold district.
Given due care as Councillor Eberme has just been saying
to the timetable and
to the timeline and
is there a reason why we cannot recommend we the ONS, is there a reason why we cannot recommend
that the cabinet considers its priorities?
Is there a reason why it cannot then allocate funds using pre -agreed and evolving discretionary
options?
In other words, rather than reserving a balance, could we not allocate that balance, or at
least some of it on a careful basis, towards addressing the known problems of today and
the known priorities of today on a temporary basis,
so putting the situation of our district
as a priority over the size of the balance.
Is there a reason why we cannot actually do that,
should we choose to want to do so?
I'll give you my view as the CFO.
I'm required as part of the budget process to prepare a section 25 statement.
That statement comments on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the reserves
for the forthcoming financial year.
That will be prepared over the coming couple of weeks and ready for all members to consider
as part of their ruminations on whether to approve or not approve the budget that will
be debated at Council on the 24th of February. One of the key criteria on the adequacy of
the reserves is have you set enough reserves aside to deal with your planned expenditure
over the coming MTFS period. We have a significant gap opening up, so we will be utilising those
reserves, those reserves are being utilized to support the budget currently.
So in the absence of two, three, four million pounds worth of cost reduction coming through
over the next two, three years, we will be spending those reserves.
To divert those reserves, in my opinion and in my advice as a CFO, to supporting other
initiatives leaves the council open to not being financially sustainable in two or three
That's not to say it can't happen, but based on the current position where I can't
say with any certainty and I can't advise you as members that we will balance the budget
in two years' time because there will be two million pounds worth of cost reduction,
my view would be very simple.
It would be put as much aside for that eventuality in the financial resilience reserve to ensure
that as a consequence you are not then having to take really drastic decisions on the level
and quality of services that you will be providing to all the residents.
If we do not find significant cost reductions over the next two years, there is a very real
prospect and it is spelt out in the draft report that we would need in that circumstances
to apply for exceptional financial support from the Government.
There are a limited number of authorities that apply for that exceptional financial
support in the current Parliament, and I think six authorities in the final settlement have
been given additional council tax -raising powers.
So it's not that the government is supporting you, it's the residents who would be required
to pay even more in council tax.
So at this point in time, in terms to answer your question, there is nothing preventing
committee and the members of the committee making that recommendation to cabinet.
It would then be for cabinet to consider that and it would be for members at the meeting
in February to determine whether that is a reasonable course of action to follow.
But my view would be quite clear at the current point of CFO that the priority for those reserves
would be to ensure adequate reserves to support the budget.
Sorry, Councillor Jenkinson, could you just wait a moment? I would actually like my Councillor
Evan Meatwood wanted to respond before you. Thank you.
Just to follow up, just to remind members that within our current reserves allocation,
I think this was in the budget last year, wasn't it, David? We did put reserves aside
of a few hundred thousand pounds from memory each against our corporate priorities. So
there is money in there to do things against the corporate priorities of the Council.
In my experience, spending those things, you know, Councillor Spivey sat on the cabinet
for five and a half years as well, it's not, you know, doing all the due diligence and
spending those monies on the things that we want to isn't a straightforward thing.
So I'm not sitting here thinking, oh, there's loads of money that we could put to, even
Even if we did seek to want to put more money into those reserves, I'm not sure we could
necessarily spend it.
Clearly what we need to do as a cabinet and the council overall, but my responsibility
to the lead is to look at working with David as to how we can get essentially the revenue
budget gap down so that the reserves that we've got in our financial resilience reserve
will last to the end of the council and a bit beyond because we need to demonstrate
that and whilst we're all assuming that the white paper will be implemented, it's not
even a bill yet, it has to go through Parliament, it has to go through due process, lots of
things can happen that we can't make the assumption, I think it would be premature to do anything
now. In a year's time I think when we've seen the bill, it's gone through Parliament, we
would have the certainty, we could be having this conversation and in advance of that I
could be working with David and saying I think we can put some more into this. We would look
at work with officers to make cases to do that, but I don't think we can do that at
this point.
Okay, but to be clear, my point is that we can make a policy. And my interpretation of
what you said, I have run a company, I know you have to manage things. And I always used
to believe that you need to have a voice of caution
as well as a voice of, well, what's our ambition?
So it's really important that there's a voice of caution.
And I'm certain, David, that you will continue to provide that.
It's very important to have that.
But what I'm saying is in a situation where we do not
have an indefinite future, in fact,
we have a very short future.
And even with the concerns, there
is still a pot of money left there.
And our balance, balanced means you
can take money from reserves as long
as it is not a recurring cost.
That being the case, what I'm saying is that earlier we determine a policy that says
we will consider the use of our reserves in order to optimize what it is that we transfer.
I'm not saying what that is. Cabinet will need to consider.
There will need to be various options. Things will need to go into.
But we can start planning ahead on that basis and evolve it on a cautionary basis.
Why is that not a wise policy to take?
Thank you Councillor Jenkinson. Do you want to come back on that one of you?
And I think that we'll go to whoever, the next person?
I think I just answered the point about where we are.
I think it's premature to move down that route.
Not to say that we couldn't in six months time be doing that,
but I just don't think we should be doing it right now,
given where we are in terms of our MTFS position.
Councillor Cunningham.
We seem to be spending money where I don't think we necessarily need to spend money.
Page 82, 6 .29.
There's 328 ,000 pounds being spent.
Is that correct?
That seems like an awful lot of money to me for roles that may or may not have longer term value.
My main question really is on 7 .8,
The public a review phase two posts the single biggest risk to a balanced budget in 25 -26
and over the MTFS period. Is it not time that we took a long hard look at whether we want
to plunge into phase two, given that we are recognising it already as being potentially
over budget and that it is going to pose the single biggest risk to us having balanced
budgets going forward even with the other pressures.
And in 7 .21 the Council's priorities, there are some things in there where we have reserves
which I'm not sure necessarily need to be quite as generous as they look.
That's a question, not a statement.
Housing delivery reserve of 500 ,000, does what exactly?
We seem to be funding the SIREN system master plan.
Have I got that right or have I got that wrong?
Why are we doing that?
If we get the 250 ,000 from the government for the local plan, that's great, but if we
don't, I don't think we've got much choice in spending that.
But my main question is, do we not think now is the time to take a pause on phase two of
the transition, when quite clearly we can't afford it?
No, it is my short answer, but I will say it a bit more.
I think what you will see and will be bringing it next month,
so you will get the opportunity to quiz on this next month,
and then it will obviously come to Council,
is that a long, hard look has been taken at it
by our Chief Executive, our Deputy Chief Executive,
working with the transition team.
And therefore what you can see in terms of what David has put
in these papers is not what you would have seen previously
in terms of the purposes transferring in phase two.
Now, I think, you know, we will have that discussion in a month
or so's time about the merits of that.
and obviously it's a full council decision as well.
And I think there are reasons why the things that are in here
are being proposed to be progressed.
So I don't want to necessarily rehearse that debate.
What David has done here is to say, yeah,
other things being equal,
if those services aren't transformed and run differently,
they're going to cost us more money.
So I get your point, David,
initially it is a risk and clearly what we don't know yet but in any likelihood
the of any sort of formation of a new council it won't be one that includes
both this council and West Oxfordshire so I think that comes the idea that
publica will continue in its current form beyond the lifespan of this council
I think is very unlikely. I can't see how that will happen because I can't see how a new single Gloucestershire or even an East Gloucestershire will want to have an arrangement with staff working for Oxfordshire or whatever the format turns out in Oxfordshire.
I just don't think that's going to happen. So the likelihood is, you know, almost certain that the public will end up being wound up as a consequence of local government reorganisation.
So I don't think we can say, but I've said what we will look at is in terms of well how's
the most efficient way of doing that in the light of those considerations and you know
however the councils end up being mapped out.
We'll have to look at how we run the services that are currently provided by public in the
new council, whatever form that takes.
So I think essentially the direction of travel isn't going to change.
What I think is happening and will have the easiest of a slowing down, at least in the short term.
And the reason you mentioned some of those posts, I think,
having taken on the cabinet responsibility for transformation and being on a two day training course on it with the LGA,
with other people who have transformed listening to them and talking to people about transformation,
we need people to do it. You can't expect it to happen at the speed we want it to happen
if we rely on our existing officers with all the work they've already got of running the
council as it is now. So we need some dedicated support for them. And two of those roles are
in there and they will be funded from revenue reserves so they're not adding to the base
budget. I'll stop there so if David's got anything to add. I was just going to
comment on that table in page 82. The head of learning and development should
really be called the head of organizational development and people
and that's a role that will support the delivery of the culture and values piece
of work that was important that the council had in place with the transfer
staff from public to the council as part of phase one and phase two. That is the
only post that is being created within the structure of the council that would
be a call on the revenue budget. All the other posts would be funded either from
the transformation reserve or from the council tax second homes premium and so
the additional strategic housing support is recognising that in order to
accelerate the delivery or the enablement of the
delivery of affordable housing within the
district that we need some more resource to support
Alan Hope, the strategic housing manager, in those
conversations and those options appraisals with our
registered provider partners and other
interested parties.
In terms of the risk that phase two presents at the
time this report was drafted and when the draft
MTFS was done in November, it was unclear what impact phase two would have. I think
having worked on that over the last couple of months and with the impact of
devolution as Councillor Avrami has set out, there is a reduced scope for the
initial part of phase two but clearly it does pose a significant risk to the
council that if we don't take the right decisions and have the consideration of
cost as a primary part of the design principles around phase two, that that does pose a risk
to ongoing cost because clearly bringing staff back to the council in phase one has increased
the cost of that service delivery. With phase two, it is likely to be that where the extent
of services have been shared through the public model for those services to return to the
you will have to pay more to get the same type of service because clearly you're sharing individuals across three councils.
You might be having to employ a single individual or sharing a single individual. That's going to cost more.
And we need to bear that in mind when designing those structures and that will come forward to this committee and cabinet and council in March.
What I was going to say, once you've had that, is that we are on two hours, and I wanted
to have, once David had his question, whether people want to have a vote for having a break.
So please, yes, go ahead.
It's really quick page 49 the table es2
CDC service pay inflation
Numbers seem to accelerate in an alarming way through from 26 to 29
I shall look into that.
There was a change in the way the inflation is being allocated across publica and CDC.
So it was in the current year, a relatively known number, given the number of staff that
we have, that there was under Phase 1 a transfer of £3 .6 million of staffing budget from Publica
to the Council.
And it's that that is probably complicating that.
I will review that.
But the overall bottom line numbers within the MTFS are correct.
It may be the presentation at this table is somewhat confusing.
Thank you.
So now we are on two hours. I don't know how much longer and further, whether we want to have a break now and come back.
No, no, I mean, wonderful to have one person's opinion. Could I have the committee's opinion? Is everybody happy to continue?
How many more contributions are we looking at?
Oh, Councillor Foulst is the only one I'm aware of.
I've got some... I think we can wait for Councillor Fowle to finish then.
One of the questions Councillor Cunningham asked was in looking at the figures in
more detail than I've been able to, is he correct in assuming that we're
funding the Sirencester master plan for 200 ,000 specifically?
Or is that, I don't know what page that's on David,
but it seems to me that given Sirencester has quite a
significant council tax precept, I'd like to know if that is the
fact or isn't the fact.
This question will go to a bigger question after that,
if I may.
So in terms of what's included within the EMR reserve for the local plan, the Syrinsester
town centre master plan which is commissioned jointly with the town council, there is an
element of cost that this council will pick up and there's an element of cost that the
town council will pick up. There's an additional 250 ,000 that's being set aside within that
reserve to recognise the changes that are made to the national planning policy framework
and the need to update the local plan and all the information that Matt
Brisson gave you for an earlier agenda item. But we're clear in that spending
plan in relation to that reserve that we're only picking up the costs that are
associated with this council's activities, that there is a degree of
cost sharing across the wider piece with that Sire ancestor town centre master plan.
Thank you and Councillor Fowls. The bigger question is looking at
the detail on page 59 of what's going on with other councils
and the fact that under 2 .9, one in four councils have warned that they're likely to apply for emergency
government bailout arrangements, EFS, to stave off bankruptcy in the next two financial years, which is huge.
The whole kind of feel of this meeting is government have reduced the funding by three million pounds
It is almost as if we are taking it on the chin without actually turning around and saying
enough is enough.
And I would assume that the question that David asked about the reserves, that by the
time we have looked at whether or not we can make the budget gap, close that budget gap,
we will be looking at all those reserves as part of the process anyway.
So whether some of them are overstated or understated, that will come out in the wash.
But at what point do we look at EFS?
Yes, and what is the downside, given that that seems to be the direction of travel for
one in four councils?
Isn't there a point at which we turn around to central government and say, given that
they are, how shall I put it, of a different political persuasion to both the ruling group
and indeed the opposition, that enough is enough?
Stick it.
We have financial responsibilities, we are running a council as you were previously,
David, under governments I think of the current flavor of the coalition and then under your
party.
And essentially the points are being made on our behalf and David makes them in the
opportunities that he gets with his peers to make representations to the government.
The leader makes them on our behalf and also in his role at the local government association.
and very strong representations obviously around devolution at the moment, but the financial
settlement as I think as David said for district councils is appalling.
I mean it's the worst settlement that we've had since I've been doing this job for nearly
six years now as the cabinet member for finance of this council.
This is the worst settlement we've ever had.
So it's not gonna miss the fact that this is a really bad settlement and it's looking really gloomy.
And the representations are being made.
I think the point that David has written in the report about the exceptional financial support,
and he might talk a little bit more about that, is that's a place you never want to get
because essentially what you're doing is you're asking the government permission to do something
which is either massively increasing your council tax or it's selling off an asset and
using that to fund revenue spending is things that you don't want to be doing. The government
isn't doling out lots of extra cash under there are some councils that are trying to
ask the council to write off their debts. And you know that they're almost certainly
going to say no. So I think it's a situation that local government finance is in a really
the finances of councils are in a really bad place overall.
We are not in as bad a place as an awful lot of other councils.
But as you can tell, obviously from the presentation and the reports, you know, it's not rosy looking forward.
It's tricky. It's difficult for us. And we will struggle to balance our
budget in the medium term financial strategy, as we said, without making significant savings.
but you know that we are in a better place than most councils so I think that
the point is that you know if the government doesn't change their approach
and doesn't seek to find more funding for councils specifically for us you
know it's not next year it's the year after obviously that the business rates
reset will kick in and district councils across the country you know will be in a
very very difficult position because they'll be facing similar reductions
that we're facing without necessarily the reserves to back them up to get them
through. If David wants to add anything. Just on exceptional financial support as
as councilor Evans said it's somewhere the council doesn't want to go having
those conversations with MHCLG that you've exhausted all your available
resources and you need them to support you. Now the authorities that have tended
to have that conversation are initially the authorities that had activities that the government
would deem reckless, so making investments such as Slough, Woking, Thurrock.
But the authorities that are heading towards exceptional financial support and in the Secretary
of State's written statement to Parliament today, there were six councils where they
have agreed changes to their council tax referendum levels.
Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council,
Birmingham City Council, Bradford Council, Newham,
Somerset and Trafford.
The issue with exceptional financial support
is that takes some of the choice away from you as members,
because the government will determine
what that exceptional financial support looks like.
So they might give you what's called a capitalization
directive.
So they might say, well, you've got that lovely asset over there.
It's worth 10 million pounds.
You sell that and we'll allow you to apply that capital receipt to your revenue budget.
Problem solved.
It goes away.
But only for a limited amount of time.
Exceptional financial support is about providing the council with a financial lifeline for
a very defined period of time.
So in this instance, those authorities are being given permission to raise their council
tax by a greater amount than other authorities have, that doesn't fundamentally address the
issue.
So in terms of, I suppose, where I would be looking to go with this, and in terms of that
section of the report, that was there for context.
So the LGA survey was undertaken prior to their annual conference.
It's designed to give you as members that wider perspective of what's going on across
the sector.
That doesn't indicate that this council is in a difficult financial position, but it
gives you some context that if we're talking about Section 114 notices and EFS, we're not
alone.
And to bring you right up to date with the Section 114 notice, another one was issued
on the 23rd of January by the London Borough of Barnet, but that was in relation to unlawful
expenditure on their pension scheme that had been picked up by their external auditors.
But the number of authorities looking at EFS
across the southwest, I know, is relatively high.
And there are changes that the government are looking
at around the capitalization directive.
Statutory override on dedicated schools grants
deficits, which is a very big number.
But within the report, I set out something called the
statutory override on IFRS 9.
In today's consultation response, the government have indicated they are still going to press
ahead with ending that statutory override, but have recognised in the responses and lobbying
that councils have made that may cause one or two problems.
So at the moment their position is that the statutory override would apply, wouldn't apply,
And councils that make new investments after the 1st of
April 2025 would need to comply with those new rules.
But they are looking at whether transitional
arrangements would need to be put in place for
authorities that have undertaken investments
prior to that period, of which all our investments
would be.
So there's a couple of things the government can do
that would avoid us having to set aside additional
reserve funding to mitigate a risk that's around
particular government policy on that statutory override.
Can I just come back quickly, Chairman?
Just to say, I was not, I think we're very lucky,
forget whether we're in the opposition or the ruling
group here, to have both you and Mike looking after
our finances and looking after our financial health,
and I really mean that.
But I would totally endorse what Mike has said,
that this is the worst settlement I can remember.
And there comes a point where you almost hold your hand up and say enough is enough.
The parallel is in business, once upon a time if you were made redundant it was always a
stigma whereas today it isn't.
I'm just saying that you put that in the report and I was interested to know what the ramifications
were.
Looking at what Cheltenham have done for example, albeit the decision to sell their building
was made perhaps before some of the more recent news,
but we are sitting on a huge asset here.
We have put a lot of money into this building.
We have got fewer people here than we had five years ago
and being forced into making decisions.
I wasn't advocating it.
I just thought someone ought to ask the question about EFS.
That was all. Thank you, Jim.
Just hold on. Did you want to come back on that?
Chancellor Jenkins, just one moment before you go.
Was there anybody else who wanted to go?
I am not saying that Councillor Jenkinson will still have time, but was there anything
that anybody else wanted?
Councillor Jenkinson.
Thank you, Chair.
I noticed Councillor Fowls had asked questions earlier as well.
On this topic...
We are all good with that.
Good.
I would like to bring your attention to item 1 .55 on page 56.
Page 56. And it's in the context, I'm intending to bring it anyway, but the previous conversation
in relation to what you brought, Councillor Fowles, is very relevant to what I'm saying.
In this paragraph it says, the Council has been able to prepare a sound budget whilst
maintaining services to residents.
I would like to suggest first of all, let me be clear, I think the council is doing
an excellent job with its resources.
I think that the Cotswold District Council is a good council in many respects.
I'm part of the group that operates it.
Why wouldn't I think that?
I think we're doing a fantastic job.
But I think the problem here is that we're doing the fantastic job that we do in the
context that we have just been discussing.
And this does not make that clear.
It suggests all is well.
It's all tickety -boo.
We have all the money we need, and we're
providing perfect services.
Thank you very much.
This is not the case.
And I do believe that this terminology could
be improved in order to get the real message across as to what
is the fact of the situation.
We're providing excellent services
under the circumstances and still maintaining a somewhat sound budget in
the short, in my book, the next three or four years is not the medium term,
I mean medium term, three, four, five years. I don't expect to be standing for
election again in Cotswold district so it's how do we manage our future as
I brought earlier. Can I suggest that we suggest we modify this particular
paragraph. Thank you. Thank you Angus. I don't think any of us will be standing
for election. I don't think there will be another one. So you know things could
change and we might. I think obviously the wording of the specific detail of
the report is something for David. Obviously it's his judgment about the
budget being sound is an important judgment. The budget remind people
is just next year, it's not the years beyond, beyond is the MTFS. So what we've
said is you know the budget for next year I think is sound and most of the
discussion we've had has really been about beyond that despite that obviously
we've... I was not going back to maintaining services. Yeah and I think you know well we're not
proposing to cut any services in this in this budget so it is maintaining the
services and obviously we would like to be able to improve them where we can. That is
where we are getting back to the transformation stuff. We need to be doing the transformation
work to see how we can work not just to maintain the service but actually to improve them.
I am very keen that we continue to do that. If David wants to say anything else about
the wording of the report?
I'm always happy to receive feedback on the wording given some of the drafting of the
report takes place quite late into the evening or the morning. Essentially the conclusion
is what you would expect from a CFO. It's not overstating that we're providing excellent
services. It's trying to keep it factual, but I do take the point and will consider
that in any future draft. Right, thank you. I've just got a few little
observations of my own. First of all I just want to support the local plan must
be a priority which is stated on page 90. I think on page 54 you actually by
talking about these acronyms and things which Councillor Dickson referred to earlier,
it's MEES, the minimum energy efficiency standards in buildings. So
It's one of those things that I know a bit about.
Item of detail.
Item of detail, but it's a me's.
And I think that's, I don't think mess or whatever.
The, I just had a thing on page 70.
The communication team is costing 84K, yet there's a reduction
in development management and forward planning by 7K.
I didn't really, with benefit for residents,
I didn't see where the reduction is.
Perhaps you can explain why those figures are as they are.
And attaching on one of my favorite little things,
on page 86 you refer to the sub -letting of parts
of Trinity Road by Watermore Point,
suggesting that there is more interest now
and more places are taken, but not so much in the atrium.
I just wondered how much CDC pays to heat or to support that part of the building which
is largely not occupied or got tenants in now.
Are we supporting the costs in there?
Thank you.
So in terms of taking the final question first, there is a cost to the council of any unoccupied
space, where lettings are made through Baltimore Point.
Baltimore Point take that on, charge the tenant that
they've arranged, and that's recovered through there.
So there will be a notional cost.
I have had this evening an update from Baltimore Point
on the activity and the interest, and I've seen a
considerable spike from their last update that was
provided at the beginning of January, and they have
signed contracts with three more tenants for that part
of the atrium.
That is the most difficult part of the building to lend given it's an open plan space and you're in competition
With the kitchen table and the kitchen table generally comes at a low cost
Compared to the atrium or other shared workspace
Well, I think David might be able to explain to you the 7k I guess that's almost about now we've moved
the staff over, we have a view about the money, the budget that we have got and how that relates
to the staff that we have got and that is where the 7K comes from. The comms team was
a head of communications post which essentially was split between West Oxfordshire and ourselves
and that is the additional cost that has gone in.
isn't it David I'll let you follow that.
So page 70 paragraph 5 .6 on the table but to on page 71 show the change that's been
made to the estimate of the phase one cost between the July 2024 detailed transition
plan this committee considered along with cabinet and council. The update that was included
in the November report and where we are currently in December.
So a number of those explanations are relatively
small adjustments, and that reflects, I suppose,
the financial model that was developed to do this made
an assumption for July, and we've replaced that assumption
with the actual salary points that individuals have been
transferred across to or where we've recruited.
So what the table is trying to show members is that back in July when the phase one detailed
transition plan was signed off there was an estimated enduring impact or increase of 356 ,000.
That now stands at 481 with the change column on the far right measuring the difference
between the July and December figures as I don't think I made that abundantly clear in
the table.
It looks like it's November and December figures 66.
Well, thank you for that. I just felt that the development management forward planning is quite an important area of the council.
It had a sort of minus against it.
I think it's a very small minus.
So I don't think it's anything about not having the people, maybe it's just that
David might know, it's just that the cost of individual people is slightly less than
we anticipated.
But I know we have been very recruiting new senior members of staff into that function,
which we're all very keen to see them start in the coming weeks and months.
So their figures for their employment are not reflected in these figures.
So in terms of what I've done is looked at the financial model that was version 8A, which
was used to give you the figures in July, and the current version, there will be a number
of changes that would have been made in those assumptions.
It's not the point that we have fewer staff, it's that the actual salaries that we're paying would have been an estimate in July and we've replaced that as we've transferred the staff across and recruited the real figures.
Well thank you for that and I fully appreciate that it's hard. Whenever you're working on these things, they are estimates, they're guesstimates.
So, has anybody got anything else? I think I know what Councillor Cunningham is going
to suggest. No? Question? But other than if we haven't, I think it's time almost to bring
the meeting to an end.
IFRS 9, does that also apply to assets or is it only pooled funds? That's number one.
Number two, can you give me, even offline, a better explanation of damping, please?
Because that seemed like a bit of wizardry in the accounts where money suddenly just appeared.
It looked lovely, but I'd like to know what damping is.
So just the two questions. One on the assets and one on damping. Thanks.
Damping is a particular piece of terminology used by local government finance.
There was reference to floors and ceilings.
It is the transitional arrangements.
So what damping is meant to do is the government would
set an overall level that you can't see your resources
increase by or decrease by.
So if you fall below the bottom of the floor, damping
kicks in and they top you up to that floor.
So if we, for example, saw a 50 percent reduction in our
funding, but damping was set at 10 percent, they would
take you back up to what a 10 percent reduction
looks like.
In terms of the IR for S9 statutory override, that
only applies to a very specific class of
investments.
It doesn't apply to assets.
I can share with you the note that was prepared by
Arningclose that goes into some detail as to which
particular investment type was being reviewed, and it
is 31A as part of the relevant information.
But it does go down to quite a bit of detail.
but our assets are not part of that.
So our fixed assets in terms of investment properties
would not be subject to that.
It's the pooled funds.
That's a stroke of luck.
Since we're asking for definitions.
Colleagues, colleagues, half an hour ago,
we had one more question.
We now have five more.
Obviously suggest you terminate the meeting.
We just know what a cabinet transformed working group
Councillors?
It's just a typo, the word council shouldn't be there.
Thank you.
Well, thank you, and thanks to everybody.
And marvellous for you to all read all these figures.
I think it's very important, actually, one is across the understanding of the finances
in the Council.
But thank you.
Do we just note the report?
I don't think we've got any recommendations to make.
So that's all we do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good night.
.
- Minutes , 06/01/2025 Overview and Scrutiny Committee, opens in new tab
- 2025 01 06 Actions from Overview and Scrutiny for February agenda, opens in new tab
- Overview and Scrutiny recommendation on Climate and Ecological Emergency final, opens in new tab
- GESSC Report January 2024, opens in new tab
- Overview and Scrutiny Forward Plan February 2025 - May 2025, opens in new tab
- Forward Plan - February 2025 - May 2025, opens in new tab
- Update on Strategic Plan for North Cotswolds, opens in new tab
- 2025-2026 Revenue Budget Capital Programme and MTFS CAB DRAFT v4 31012025, opens in new tab
- Annex B - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025-26, opens in new tab
- Annex C - Budget Pressures and Savings 2025-26 v2, opens in new tab
- Annex D_Capital Programme 202526 to 202829, opens in new tab
- Annex D 1_Capital Programme 202526 to 202829 V2 full detail, opens in new tab
- Annex E_ Draft Annual Capital Strategy and MRP Statement 202526, opens in new tab
- Annex F Annual 202526 Draft Treasury Management and Non Treasury Investment Strategy, opens in new tab
- Annex G_Detailed Budget 2025 2026, opens in new tab
- Annex I - Budget Consultation Results, opens in new tab