To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Dave East, Maria Edey, Terry Glastonbury, Paul Hiett, Paul McMahon and from the Chairman of the Council, Councillor Norman Stephens.

In the absence of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Councillor Jane Horne, presided at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 23 February 2012 and 1 March 2012.

Subject to the following amendment, the minutes of the council meetings held on 23 February 2012 and 1 March 2012 were agreed as an accurate record of those meetings.

Vice-chairman, Councillor Jane Horne, reported an amendment to the minutes on page 23 of the agenda. Councillor Horne said that a statement from Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile, at the council meeting on 23 February 2012, should have stated that the current cost of garden waste collection was £619,939, and not £427,500. The amendment was noted and accepted.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

No items of urgent business were considered at this meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

The following declarations of interest were made at the meeting: -

In their capacity as County Councillors for Gloucestershire County Council, Councillor Terry Hale, Cabinet Member for Community, Councillor Martin Quaile, Cabinet Member for Environment and Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy and Councillor Graham Morgan, each declared a personal interest in the motion considered under item 10.2 of the agenda, relating to registration services in the Forest of Dean.

Vice-chairman, Councillor Jane Horne, announced that the resolution made at the council meeting on 1 March 2012 to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee had been accepted by the Forestry Commission, who had agreed to plant a majestic Redwood Grove close to Beechenhurst Lodge, alongside the Speech House Road. Councillor Horne said that the intended species of tree was a Sequoia Sempervirens, (Coast Redwood), one of the largest and tallest natural trees in the world, found on the pacific coast of North America between California and Oregon

Councillor Horne said that the Forestry Commission intended to plant two thirds of the proposed one to two acre site with around 600 trees.  The trees would be gradually thinned out so that in time 60 quality specimens would create a well-spaced grove of trees.  She informed members that the trees had the potential to grow to be the tallest trees in the forest, over taking the Douglas Firs that currently hold the crown, and possibly representing the tallest trees in the realm.

Councillor Horne confirmed that the Forestry Commission would pay for the trees and the planting of the trees, whilst the council had been asked to fund raise for part of the costs towards a foot-path, seating and signage at the site. Councillor Horne advised members that Cabinet Member, Diana Edwards, would be co-ordinating the project on the council’s behalf and suggested that any fund raising ideas or donations could be discussed with Councillor Edwards after the meeting.

Councillor Edwards said that she had not been in attendance at the council meeting when the resolution was made, but had been informed that the original proposal was for an avenue of trees. Councillor Edwards said that, following in-depth discussions with the Forestry Commission, it had been accepted that the most suitable tree to plant in this location was the suggested species of redwood tree, which was ideally suited to the conditions of the site.

Councillor Edwards said that Councillor Jim Connell would spearhead the fund raising project for a proposed footpath to the grove and that any ideas or financial contributions would be most welcome.

The chairman to announce that the Olympic Torch Relay will come into the Forest of Dean District on Thursday, 24 May 2012.  It will enter the village of Hartpury at 9.20am and be carried through the village before getting to Corse and Staunton at 9.35am.  The torch will then go on to Ledbury.

The Vice-chairman announced that the route of the Olympic Torch Relay would be travelling through the Forest of Dean District on Thursday, 24 May 2012. She said that, from Gloucester, the torch was scheduled to enter the village of Hartpury at around 9.20am, and continue along the route towards Corse and Staunton, where it was due to arrive at 9.35am.  The torch would then go on to Ledbury. On Friday 25 May 2012, the torch was scheduled to enter Ross-on-Wye at around 10.00am and Monmouth at 10.45am.

The Vice-chairman said that, in addition to the Olympic Torch Relay, a citizen’s initiative had been introduced to involve other areas within the forest in this historic event by means of a ‘Forest Flame’ travelling through various towns and villages within the district. Councillor Len Lawton expanded on the proposal, and said that the initiative had been brought about by the Mayor of Lydney, Councillor Bill Osborne, who had contacted Councillor Lawton in his capacity as Mayor of Newent and the other mayors within the district to seek their views on whether an alternative flame might be appropriate to supplement the Olympic Torch Relay.

Both Councillor Lawton and Councillor Osborne said that the ‘forest flame’ was neither a council nor a mayor-based initiative but a community project, that had been established on behalf of the citizens of the Forest of Dean. Councillor Lawton said that the precise details for the route had yet to be confirmed but that the intention was for a miner’s lamp, representing the district’s mining heritage, to start out from Newent, travel through the forest to Cinderford, on towards Coleford, and then on to Lydney, where the flame would be maintained over the weekend of the Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations, and used to light the Jubilee Beacon on Primrose Hill on Monday 4 June 2012. Councillor Max Coborn, Mayor of Cinderford, spoke in support of the initiative and said that it was a very good idea. Councillor Lawton said that he hoped members would actively support the initiative by joining him in witnessing the flame travel through the forest.

The chairman to announce that a flag raising ceremony will be held at 10.30 am on Monday, 25 June 2012 to raise the Armed Forces Day flag which will be flown throughout that week in the lead up to Armed Forces Day on Saturday, 30 June.  On the evening of Monday, 25 June there will also be a presentation for members in the Council Chamber at 6pm by the Commanding Officer of 1 Rifles, Lieutenant Colonel James de la Billière, who will describe the work his unit did during their recent deployment to Afghanistan.

Members were informed that a flag raising ceremony would take place outside the council offices at 10.30 am on Monday, 25 June 2012. The Vice-chairman said that the Armed Forces Day flag would be raised and flown throughout the remainder of the week in the lead up to Armed Forces Day on Saturday, 30 June 2012. Councillor Horne said there would also be a presentation to all members at 6 pm on Monday, 25 June 2012, by the Commanding Officer of 1 Rifles, Lieutenant Colonel, James de la Billière. The presentation will be held in the council chamber and is a member only event.

The chairman is delighted to announce that the Council has been shortlisted for two of the prestigious Municipal Journal (MJ) Awards.

·        The Legal Team have been shortlisted in the Legal Services Award for how their value for money service helps makes a difference to the community

·         The Environmental Protection and Licensing Team have been shortlisted in the Public Protection Award for their work in partnership with the Police to combat metal theft

The Award winners will be announced in late June.

The Vice-chairman said she was very pleased to announce that the Forest of Dean District Council had been short-listed for two of the prestigious Municipal Journal (MJ) Awards. She said that the council’s legal team had been short-listed for the Legal Services Award for the contribution its value for money service had made to the community and that the Environmental Protection and Licensing Team had been short-listed in the Public Protection category for its partnership work with the police to combat metal theft. Award winners will be announced in late June. Councillor Horne wished both teams the very best of luck and congratulated them on getting this far.

To answer questions asked by members of the public. The constitution requires that questions are received three working days before the meeting (deadline 4.00pm on Monday, 23 April 2012)

No public questions were considered at this meeting.

The following questions were submitted before the meeting: -

Can the cabinet member give assurances that with the restructuring of Domestic Abuse Services in the County we will still maintain a Refuge and Outreach service in the Forest of Dean area that will continue to support women, men and children suffering from Domestic Abuse?

‘Can the cabinet member give assurances that with the restructuring of Domestic Abuse Services in the County we will still maintain a Refuge and Outreach service in the Forest of Dean area that will continue to support women, men and children suffering from Domestic Abuse’?

Response from Cabinet Member for Community, Councillor Terry Hale

‘The Gloucestershire Supporting People Team has run a procurement exercise to find a new partner for the delivery of support for those facing Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence in the county. Forest of Dean District Council Officers have been involved in this process.

“People Can”, a national voluntary organisation already working across Gloucestershire and leading a consortium of organisations, including Westlea Housing, has been appointed to run the service covering the county. It is the aim of the Supporting People Strategy to move away from accommodation based support towards more floating support across the whole Supporting People Scheme. For Domestic Abuse, it is proposed that support such as the Sanctuary Scheme, which enables people to remain safely in their own homes, will over time replace the need for refuges in many cases. It is appreciated that there will continue to be a need for emergency accommodation but there will be fewer places.

The Supporting People Manager has received an undertaking from “People Can” stating that they will retain the Forest of Dean Refuge on taking over the contract but will review the use of the scheme. People Can has also given a commitment that they will not take any action without consulting the County Council and the Forest of Dean District Council.

On Tuesday afternoon, (24 April 2012), staff were informed that notice had been served on several of the residents from the Forest of Dean Refuge. Appointments have been made for Forest of Dean District Council Officers to interview those involved and offer assistance. The Gloucestershire Supporting People Team Manager will meet representatives from both Stonham Housing, the current owners of the property, and from “People Can”,on Friday 27 April 2012 to discuss transitional arrangements and has promised to inform the council’s Strategic Housing Manager of decisions made at these meetings. The priority for the council is to ensure that a place of safety and support remains available for those facing domestic abuse in this district’.

Supplementary question from Councillor O’Neill

‘Councillor O’Neill said that he was happy with the assurance that had been given by ‘People Can’ that the Forest of Dean Refuge would be retained on taking over the new contract, but asked, should the current provider, (Stonham Housing), already have made the decision to close down the refuge, what power would the council have to stop it, as, when the refuge was originally established, it had been on the understanding that should the refugeclose, it would be handed back to the council, who might then decide to hand it on to the new provider’?

Response to Supplementary Question from Cabinet Member for Community, Councillor Terry Hale

Referring to the final  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

In the light of the impending changes to the on-street parking regime in Cinderford, with the removal of double yellow lines and free parking for 30 minutes, could we be told how this will be policed?

‘In the light of the impending changes to the on-street parking regime in Cinderford, with the removal of double yellow lines and free parking for 30 minutes, could we be told how this will be policed’?

Response from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

The administration of on-street parking enforcement will not change in the short term and the existing arrangements with Gloucester City Council will continue. 

Supplementary question from Councillor Bernie O’Neill

‘Is it not the case that in order for this to be policed properly it would need a full-time operation in Cinderford, and will there be a more sympathetic and relaxed approach to encourage shoppers into the town’?

Response to Supplementary Question from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

The response to the supplementary question above was incorporated with the answer to the supplementary question considered under item 7.3 of the agenda.

Could we also be told how the new off-street parking arrangements will be policed?

‘Could we also be told how the new off-street parking arrangements will be policed’?

Response from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

Management of our off-street parking will be through our Service Level Agreement with Gloucester City Council. This will see the existing enforcement officers working on and off-street.  The team will be expanded to initially provide an additional 28 hours a week.  The total deployment cost of the team will be shared jointly by ourselves and the County Council. 

Supplementary question from Councillor Bernie O’Neill

‘Does the Deputy Leader really believe that in order to police the new off-street parking system, plus the impending changes in Cinderford, plus all the other existing on-street parking arrangements, an additional 28 hours is sufficient’?

Response to Supplementary Question from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

Yes

How long is remaining on the contract with Gloucester City Council for the use of their traffic wardens in the Forest of Dean?

In the light of some recent adverse publicity, in particular where they issued a ticket for Cinderford Town Council’s maintenance lorry parking within the triangle, and also where local businesses feel their trade has been directly hit by their actions, do you regret not keeping the policing of parking in house?

‘How long is remaining on the contract with Gloucester City Council for the use of their traffic wardens in the Forest of Dean? In the light of some recent adverse publicity, in particular where they issued a ticket for Cinderford Town Council’s maintenance lorry parking within the triangle, and also where local businesses feel their trade has been directly hit by their actions, do you regret not keeping the policing of parking in house’?

Response from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

The existing agreement has been rolled forward on a 12 monthly basis since August 2009 and would require 12 months’ notice to terminate.  The County Council are seeking to provide parking enforcement on a county-wide basis from April 2013.  This will give us an opportunity to review how the service is provided from that date.

Supplementary question from Councillor Bernie O’Neill

‘In 2008, no council had any on-street parking management, as it was a policing issue. Again, at that time, wouldn’t it have been better socially and economically to have used a Forest of Dean District Council team, and would this have not been more acceptable to the Forest of Dean people’?

Response from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

Councillor Robinson said that it was not useful to speculate on a decision that had been taken four years ago. Irrespective of how the management of on-street parking was enforced, any team engaged in this activity would work to the same policy. As such, Councillor Robinson believed there had been no significant impact to the people of the Forest of Dean.

Could you please give us an indication of the financial implications of employing Gloucester City Council –

a)            On-going costs

b)            Any loss of income

c)            The overall position.

Do you believe that in any future provision of traffic wardens in the Forest of Dean, the public would be better served by an in-house team?

‘Could you please give us an indication of the financial implications of employing Gloucester City Council: -

a)     On-going costs

b)     Any loss of income

c)      The overall position

Do you believe that in any future provision of traffic wardens in the Forest of Dean, the public would be better served by an in-house team’?

Responses from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

a)     On-going costs

The cost of on-street administration is ring-fenced and is off-set by penalty charge notice fines. This is managed county-wide and is cost neutral, therefore, there is no financial implication to the Forest. 

The latest estimates from Apcoa, (on behalf of Gloucester City Council), for cash collection, cash counting, frontline maintenance and provision and replacement of tickets is £12,280.  Before discussion with Gloucester City Council, we had estimated back office costs to be £25,520.

Sharing the cost of enforcement with the County means the Council will pay £26,032 p.a. The cost of enforcement should be covered by penalty charge notice income. 

b)     Any loss of income

No loss of income has been identified, although a shortfall in penalty charge income against the cost of enforcement would need to be charged against car parking fees. 

c)     The overall position is:

·        Enforcement – on-street                          £26,032

                                    – off-street                          £26,032

·        Back office functions                                £12,280*

* Cash collection costs are based on projected income levels at a handling cost per £100.00 collected. The actual cost will therefore vary.

Do you believe that in any future provision of traffic wardens in the Forest of Dean, the public would be better served by an in-house team?

An in-house team would require a TUPE, (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment), transfer of staff to the Forest of Dean. In addition to the management costs, there would be the increased expense of investing in back office systems and support to the “traffic wardens”. We could not achieve this for £12,280 and the community would still see the same wardens working in their towns. This illustrates the efficiency gains that can be made by working with neighbouring authorities. 

Supplementary question from Councillor Bernie O’Neill

‘I would like to give the Deputy Leader a cast iron guarantee that I shall be investigating these figures and the information contained within the responses to this question in more detail. Does he agree with me that, through the massive cuts that we are facing and the decimation of all public and voluntary sector funding and services, and all the increased extra charges that have been brought about, including car parking charges, the Conservative Party, both nationally and locally, know the costs of everything but the value of nothing’?

Response to Supplementary Question from Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Planning Policy, Councillor Brian Robinson

No

In view of the recent letter to all Councillors re: Charges for the disposal of green waste: Does Cllr Quaile and the Cabinet intend to allow special dispensation for elderly and or disabled residents who are not in a position to make alternative arrangements for the disposal of their green waste?

‘In view of the recent letter to all Councillors re: charges for the disposal of green waste: Does Councillor Quaile and the Cabinet intend to allow special dispensation for elderly and or disabled residents who are not in a position to make alternative arrangements for the disposal of their green waste’?

Response from Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile 

No. This has been considered at length and we have no further plans to allow any special dispensations.

Supplementary question from Councillor Frank Baynham

‘Why is OK to allow Blue Badge Holders dispensations from car parking charges, yet ignore the extra charges faced by the same people by virtue of their disability when related to having to employ extra help to keep their gardens tidy?  When did Cabinet consider these extra costs and why did they decide to ignore the spirit, if not the letter, of the Disability Discrimination Act? Is this a matter for scrutiny’?

Response to Supplementary Question from Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile

Councillor Quaile said that the council offered assistance with the collection of garden waste to both the elderly and the disabled and that, in some cases, this had been taken up. He said that during the past five years a great deal of work had been involved in getting the council to where it is today in relation to the business of collecting waste, including a garden waste survey in 2010. Councillor Baynham said he was not happy with the answers from the cabinet member and expressed concern about the additional costs involved for the collection of waste from the gardens of people with disabilities.

To consider report LD.409 relating to revisions to the constitution.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux, presented report LD.409, and gave a detailed overview of proposed changes to the council’s Constitution, following consideration by the Constitution Working Group on 27 March 2012. The Leader said that the working group had considered the following recommendations at that meeting: -

a)     New Contract Procedure Rules

b)     Delete all references to the Chief Executive Post and substitute with a Head of paid Service Post

c)      Update the council’s scrutiny procedure rule and definition of a key decision

d)     Changes to the voting system at Development Control Committee meetings

e)     Change of name of the Development Control Committee

f)        Update the Code of Conduct for members and officers dealing with planning matters

g)     The term of office for independent members of the council’s Standards Committee and Audit Committee

h)      Allow video recordings of full council meetings to be published on the councils’ website.

The Leader said that the proposal to change the council’s contract procedure rules had transpired from its decision to enter into the GO Shared Services Partnership with Cheltenham Borough Council, Cotswold District Council and West Oxfordshire District Council, and the need to apply a common set of working practices and procedures from which each authority could work more effectively. With regard to the change to the Chief Executive post, the Leader said that the council had already achieved significant savings from deletion of this post and that the change had been introduced to reflect the new management structure. Referring to the proposed name change of the Development Control Committee, the Leader said that the proposal had arisen following the recent adoption of the Development Management Charter. He said that, at the Constitution Working Group meeting in March, the general consensus had been that the name of the committee was possibly better suited to ‘Planning Committee’, and therefore the recommendation had been amended to reflect this proposal. With regard to the recommendation to invest in a video recording system for the recording of council meetings, the Leader said that the Constitution Working Group had resolved not to progress this proposal due to the indicative costs involved at the present time. The Leader said that it might be possible to revisit this proposal in the future.

Councillor Bruce Hogan believed the proposal to change the name of the Development Control Committee could be misleading and that references to ‘Planning Committee’ might give an inflated notion about the role of the committee. Councillor Hogan said that he would not, however, be voting against or amend the proposal.

Responding to questions, Councillor Molyneux said that the new contract procedure rules would be adopted by each of the authorities involved in the GO Shared Services Partnership and that he was confident the new rules would effectively address the concerns that had been raised by the Audit Committee. In response to a question from Councillor Birch, regarding the future of the Standards Committee, the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic, Marie Rosenthal, said that the matter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider report LD.410 relating to a Proposed Electoral Review of the Forest of Dean District Council.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux, presented report LD.410 and informed members that the council had been asked to consider submitting an application to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to undertake a review of the size of the District Council, (in terms of the total number of councillors), and whether or not a move to single-member wards might represent more effective and convenient local government.

The leader said that he and the other group leaders had pondered on this proposal for some time and clarified that the decision at this meeting was only to consider whether to establish a cross party working group to prepare a business case for change that could be submitted to the Boundary Commission. Reflecting on the savings that the council had been required to make in recent years, the leader said that the only area where no change had been made during this time had been in the number of elected councillors. For this reason, the leader believed the number of elected members on the council was quite high and that the proposal to reduce the figure should be taken seriously. Expanding on why he thought the proposal was a good idea, the leader said that, despite the good reasoning behind the decision to create multi member wards, there was also evidence to suggest that this arrangement might not be as effective as single-member wards. To reinforce his comments, he said that the management of a three-member ward could be confusing to residents and not always a good use of resources. The Leader moved the recommendation that council agree to progress the project and establish a cross party working group. Councillor Brian Robinson seconded the proposal.

Councillor Di Martin said that the proposal was premature and reminded members that the first meeting of the Governance Options Group was due to take place the following week to review the current governance arrangements and whether the council wished to seek an alternative model. Councillor Martin said that, from the outset she had opposed the notion of an electoral review and strongly urged members to not look at the make-up of the council until after the Governance Options Group had completed its work.

A full and comprehensive debate ensued, with several members agreeing that the decision to undertake an electoral review precipitated the need to consider what model of governance might be required. Councillor Bruce Hogan said that it would be dangerous to commit to the leader’s recommendation and absolute madness to set free the hounds before the hares. Reflecting on a similar situation at Gloucestershire County Council, Councillor Hogan expressed concern about the unforeseen consequences that might arise should the Boundary Commission be called on to undertake a review of the make up of the council before the governance issue had been resolved. Councillor Bill Evans said that, as a rural community, he believed the option to become a unitary council was a more realistic option and suggested that the debate on this matter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The following motions were considered at the meeting: -

With the recent announcement that Heywood School is seeking academy status and that the Heywood site is secure.

I move that this council releases the ring fenced funds of £300,000 held to make improvements to our leisure facilities in Cinderford as quickly as possible.

‘With the recent announcement that Heywood School is seeking academy status and that the Heywood site is secure. I move that this council releases the ring-fenced funds of £300,000 held to make improvements to our leisure facilities in Cinderford as quickly as possible’.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux, said that he agreed with the motion but would like to suggest a friendly amendment. Councillor Coburn accepted the amendment to his motion.

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that, with the recent announcement that Heywood School is seeking academy status and that the Heywood site is secure, that this council continues the positive progress to date with the key partners on the site to develop a single, combined community offer, then releases the ring fenced funds of £300,000, held to make improvements to the leisure facilities in Cinderford, when a joined up solution has been agreed. If there is no progress in 12 months, the issue to be revisited.

Vote

For (37)

Councillors, Frank Baynham, James Bevan, Roy Birch, Max Coborn, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Peter Ede, Brian Edwards, Diana Edwards, Clive Elsmore, Bill Evans, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Julia Gooch, Terry Hale, Val Hobman, Jane Horne (Vice chairman), Bruce Hogan, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Len Lawton, Di Martin, Patrick Molyneux, Graham Morgan, Bernie O'Neill, Bill Osborne, Martin Quaile, Brian Robinson, Marrilyn Smart OBE, Lynn Sterry, Roger Sterry, Helen Stewart, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson, Ian Whitburn and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

I move that further to our previous motion to the County Council and its subsequent reassurances, this Council expresses in the strongest terms possible its concerns about the continuing lack of regular access to Registration Services in the Forest of Dean. Currently, the service is only available once a week with many bereaved residents now having to travel to Stroud to register a death, which is totally unacceptable at a time of distress, especially when there is no direct public transport link and the distance to travel from the Forest to Stroud.

‘I move that further to our previous motion to the County Council and its subsequent reassurances, this Council expresses in the strongest terms possible its concerns about the continuing lack of regular access to Registration Services in the Forest of Dean. Currently, the service is only available once a week with many bereaved residents now having to travel to Stroud to register a death, which is totally unacceptable at a time of distress, especially when there is no direct public transport link and the distance to travel from the Forest to Stroud’.

Councillor Martin spoke about the anguish and distress that had been placed on local residents from a continuing lack of access to registration services in the Forest of Dean. Referring to the same motion that had been considered at a previous meeting, Councillor Martin said that the position was a case of déjà vu, in that the circumstances remained unchanged and the issue unresolved. Councillor Martin informed members that deaths had to be registered within five days of the bereavement, with the exception of those referred to the Coroner. She said that, at present, it was impossible to get an appointment at the Gloucester Office due to the backlog of work that existed and that the only office where residents of the Forest of Dean could register a death was at the Stroud office, which had very few appointments and was extremely difficult to access, especially when travelling by public transport. Urging the council to make immediate representation, Councillor Martin accentuated the level of distress this had caused and said that the position was totally unacceptable.

Whilst aware of the predicament, Gloucestershire County Councillor, Brian Robinson, said that he did not want to make excuses for the county council but believed it was important to explain that long-term sickness had been the cause of the problem. Councillor Robinson said that his expectation was that the matter should have been resolved before now and that he intended to challenge the county council on the issue. County Councillors, Terry Hale, Graham Morgan and Martin Quaile agreed with this sentiment and said that they would do everything possible to resolve the problem. Councillor Quaile suggested that the County Councillors work collectively in addressing the problem at the Cinderford Office, whilst Councillor Morgan referred to a meeting with Gloucestershire Registration Services that was due to take place at Cinderford Town Council the following day. Councillor Morgan advised members to contact the town council before 2.30pm if they wished to express an opinion on the matter.

Several other members expressed their disappointment that the matter had not been resolved following receipt of the earlier motion. With the unanimous support of the council, it was agreed to make strong representation to the county council and hopefully avoid the loss of this vital service.  A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that in the strongest terms possible the council express its concerns about the continuing lack of regular access to Registration Services in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.2

The Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee to report on recent activities, followed by questions from members. Depending on time the Chairman will rule and only take one question per member relating to reports.

a)     Cabinet – Councillor Patrick Molyneux

b)     Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Philip Burford

Having considered activity reports from the cabinet and the overview and scrutiny committee, the following questions were considered: -

Councillor David Thomson asked the Leader of the Council to reconsider the cabinet decision to award an annual £10,000 contribution towards the low carbon homes project over the next three years. Councillor Thomson said that at the presentation that had been held prior to the cabinet decision, a number of members had been of the opinion that the project would be of little value to the majority of people living in the Forest of Dean and believed that the proposal should be refused. Questioning the rationale of some of the case studies used on the Severn and Wye Energy Agency website, Councillor Thomson asked the leader to reconsider the cabinet decision.

The Leader said that cabinet members had not been entirely convinced by the proposal themselves and had therefore amended the resolution to include a requirement for the council to review the agreement after the first year of the launch to ensure that the project was fulfilling the needs of the residents of the district and providing value for money. On this basis, and given the fact that the £30,000 contribution had been ring-fenced for the project, the leader said that it was not an option for cabinet to reconsider the matter and that the decision would stand. Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile, informed members that the project would eventually link to the government’s green deal initiative and said that it might be worthwhile for the council to work in association with the Severn and Wye Energy Agency until this time.

It was suggested that, in the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, that any questions relating to the scrutiny report should be emailed to either Councillor Philip Burford or Councillor Carole Allaway Martin after the meeting.