Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Chandler, Healy and Joy.

With reference to Agenda item 7, Councillor Horwood said that his portfolio as Gloucestershire County Council Cabinet Member for Nature, Climate and Waste Reduction covers flooding, but he did not consider this to be prejudicial would therefore remain in the Chamber for that item.  

Minutes of the meeting held on 7^th July 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 07 July 2025 were approved by those who attended as a true record, and signed accordingly.

There were none.

Briefing from Councillor Hay, Leader (if she has an update, or if O&S Members have questions for her)

Objective: An update from the Cabinet on key issues for Cabinet Members which may be of interest to Overview and Scrutiny and may inform the work plan

To include a regular update on the Household Recycling Centre from the Leader/Cabinet Member Waste, Recycling and the public realm.

The Leader reported on the following items:

-       most of her time is currently spent on Local Government Reorganisation, working collaboratively with county councillors and other districts, sharing thoughts and ideas, and moving towards submission of the final business case by 28 November;

-       the sale of the airport is still on track and moving in the right direction with the preferred bidder, with due diligence hopefully completed by the end of October;

-       negotiations are also progressing with the preferred bidder for the Municipal Offices, and it is hoped that the deal will be signed soon;

-       the first round of consultation on the governance review is complete – thanks to Head of Governance, Risk and Assurance and Councillor Chelin for their input – and after analysis, the next stage will be decided, to ensure all residents are represented.  Feedback will be provided at December Council for debate:

-       the resident survey is now complete, and the outcomes will also be shared with Council.  It is clear and interesting how stronger residents identify with Cheltenham as a place.

In response to Members’ questions, she confirmed that:

-       parish councils will be advised on the outcome of the first round of consultation once the feedback and views provided have been collated; the next round will set out potential options and invite further feedback.  The Head of Governance, Risk and Assurance confirmed that the draft recommendations would be taken to Council on 13 October, with the second public consultation, based on those discussions, from 20 October to 19 December.  This information will be reviewed, with the final recommendations to Council early in 2026;

-       there is no definite target date for the airport sale at present, but this will be as soon as possible after due diligence is complete at the end of October.  There will be no financial settlement or benefit for the council until the end of the year. 

Objective:To understand the general approach to the planned maintenance of public facilities and the asset management strategy.

Report by Louise Eite, Head of Property Management and Decarbonisation.

The Vice-Chair said this subject had been discussed at a working group and sparked a lot of questions.  In the absence of the report author, the Deputy Chief Executive presented the report; the interim Director of Property was present to help answer questions, with any they cannot answer taken away for written responses in due course.

The Deputy Chief Executive said the report and appendices were self-explanatory, and commented that local government reorganisation was causing some uncertainty in the workforce, with several vacancies currently out to advert. With the Director of Finance, Property and Climate Emergency on maternity leave, he advised that he will concentrate on the finance aspects of her role, with Richard King of the Golden Valley team stepping in to manage Property Services.

The following questions were taken away for written responses:

-           [follow-up to written Question 2]  If inspections have been carried out historically on an ad-hoc basis but not written down, why is it six months to the target date for the action point?  If it is a case of just writing down what is being done, it should be faster than that?

-          [follow-up to written Question 6]  The asset management document puts a value of  £32.71m against community  assets - larger than what is in the statement of accounts – and it is not clear from the answer whether the difference is because we are using a different valuation basis, so we actually think assets are worth 32.7m more than what we have in books, or whether it is a case of things being put in different categories between the two documents.  Have we got hidden assets of £30+m?

-          [follow-up to written Question 7]  Noting the 28% increase in spend on unplanned maintenance in figures provided – why did this happen and is it expected to continue to rise?

-          Following on from the previous question: in answer to a written question on year-by-year budgeted spend -  ignoring 2025-26 - against those budgeted figures, it looks like we had an underspend £565k across years.  The previous question noted significant amounts for unplanned maintenance over several years. Although we are budgeting 600k, are we looking to that budget to not spend if we need to as a council overall and that is why we have an underspend there ?  This might be storing  up problems for the future – though it depends on whether that interacts with unplanned maintenance spends.   If we underspend on one and spend a lot elsewhere, where do we end up overall?

A Member was reassured to see a lot of maintenance items listed which fall within the Cheltenham Trust’s portfolio -  includes some of Cheltenham’s most important and iconic assets -  following a  history of misunderstanding about who is responsible for what, and asked if discussions have moved towards more agreement about how this is planned going forward or whether it still remains a challenge.  The Deputy Chief Executive said it all comes down to affordability:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Objective: To understand partnership working to improve flood mitigation in the borough.

James Mogridge – Flood Risk and Planning Engineer

James Mogridge, Flood Risk and Drainage Engineer, presented his report, which highlights how Cheltenham fits into a complex national arrangement of stakeholders and flood risk management responsibilities; the importance of cross-boundary collaboration; and mitigation measures put in place since 2007 to ensure the borough is better prepared and protected.  No two rainfall events are the same, and climate change presents further challenges, but more can be done to improve resilience, with nature-based solutions such as SuDs schemes being used to slow down the flow of water through Cheltenham catchments, at the same time complementing other aspects of the climate emergency. He said the standard protection offered by some of our flood defences is expected to decrease over time, and we need to ensure that our decision-making around choosing cost-effective schemes is robust and well-informed.  

Members welcomed his report, the positive level of cooperation between the county and the borough, and the emphasis on natural solutions.

In response to questions from members of the committee, the Flood Risk and Drainage Engineer stated that:

-       the greenspace team has submitted a bid to the county council’s £100k fund for natural flood risk management at community level, for a project in one of the town’s parks;

-       providing the right level of flood risk mitigation in planning is a tough balance:  developers are currently required to  design up to and including a 1-in-100 year event, set at a national scale, plus 40% local rainfall allowance for climate change which is set by the Environment Agency, but 2007 saw two high magnitude events occur in two weeks. Developers do need to ensure exceedance events (ie events greater than 1-in-100 plus 40% climate change) are appropriately managed in their design.  Over-engineering for larger events could contribute to the problem by creating more emissions, with additional concrete, pipes and machinery.  The local 40% allowance will be reviewed  against UK climate trajectory and revised by the Environment Agency if required.

The Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency confirmed that national guidance has to be followed but noted that the heavy rainfall in September 2024 which flooded roads and one house and threatened many others in St Mark’s ward was classed as a 1-in-74 year event.  There are clearly gaps in the flood mitigation schemes shown on the map, and he will be talking to the county council about this soon. 

He went on to say that modelling is available – super Clausius-Clapeyron scaling calculates that with a 1^o  increase in global temperature since 1975, a 7% increase in moisture in the atmosphere – and therefore rainfall – is to be expected, and the projection is a 48% increase by 2050, potentially increasing annual rainfall from 900mm in 1975 to 1350mm in 2050.  It is important to keep focused on this.

In response to further questions from Members, the Flooding and Drainage Engineer said that:

-       when the surface water management plan was commissioned by the county council, it identified the highest risk areas, and the most  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Objective: The achievements of scrutiny for the municipal year 2024-2025 for submission to Council.

Presented by the Vice Chair Councillor Chelin.

The Vice-Chair said the committee was being asked to note the contents of the report, which shares what it and other scrutiny committees have been doing over the past year, as well as highlighting some of the items to be considered in the coming year.  It will go to Full Council for approval on 13 October.

There were no comments from members.

Gloucestershire Health O&S Committee – next meeting 14^th October

Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee (next meeting 19^th September)

Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel (5^th September – update at the next meeting)

No meetings have taken place since the last meeting of Overview and Scrutiny.  Feedback will be provided at the next meeting in November. 

A Member commented that the continued closure of the maternity unit at Cheltenham General Hospital is a huge concern, and it is not acceptable that, with a population of 120k, Cheltenham women and unborn babies are put at risk by having to travel to Gloucester Royal in labour, when seconds can count.  The NHS decision was originally made on immediate safety grounds, which should have been challenged by now.  He hoped that HOSC would raise the high level of concern.

The Vice-Chair said that the O&S representative on HOSC is an ardent scrutineer, and it was agreed that the Member would speak to him direct about this serious issue.  

To consider and approve the draft scrutiny work plan 2025/26

Members had nothing to add on this occasion.  An O&S planning session is scheduled for 04 November at 6.00pm.

There were none.

The next meeting will be 24^th November 2025.

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday 24 November.