Civic leaders in Gloucestershire’s Cotswold District have voted to increase their allowances despite the council leader earning significantly less than a local Screwfix trade counter supervisor.
At a council meeting in Cirencester on November 26, the stark pay disparity was highlighted—showing that the council leader’s remuneration lagged behind a retail supervisory position by around £4,000. This revelation came as part of a report by Nick Craxton, chairman of the independent remuneration panel.
The panel proposed raising the council leader’s total allowance to £28,296. This figure includes a basic councillor allowance of £6,288 and an increased special responsibility allowance for the leader, which would rise from three times the base rate to 3.5 times, amounting to £22,008. Similar increases were recommended for deputy leaders, cabinet members, and committee chairs.
READ MORE: Cheltenham Transforms into a Festive Wonderland with Ice Rink, Lights, and Pantomimes
“I would love to see council leadership as a full-time role,” Craxton remarked. “But realistically, doing that properly would require paying a lot more than what’s currently offered.” He drew attention to a job listing on Indeed.com showing a Screwfix trade counter supervisor in Cirencester earns about £4,000 more annually than the council leader’s current pay—and even £1,000 more than the proposed increase. “While every job has importance, the accountability and scrutiny on a council leader are vastly greater than for a trade counter supervisor,” he added wryly.
Council leader Mike Evemy (Lib Dem, Siddington and Cerney Rural) expressed gratitude to the panel but acknowledged the challenge councillors face in deciding allowances. “It’s never an easy decision, which is why we have an independent panel,” he said. Evemy noted that although the role often feels full-time, remuneration is modest compared to previous jobs he’s held—and this is generally expected by those serving in local government.
In opposition, Conservative group leader Tom Stowe (Campden and Vale) thanked the panel but opposed the proposed increases. He argued that, while some councillors exceed expectations warranting higher pay, the council cannot afford the cumulative £36,000 annual increase. “After years of budget cuts and service reductions, suddenly finding extra money to boost allowances for one third of councillors is not viable,” he insisted.
Despite concerns, the council ultimately voted to implement the recommended pay rises, sparking debate about public sector pay, fiscal responsibility, and the value placed on local government service.