Contact Information

Forest of Dean District Council
Council Offices
High Street
Coleford
Glos
GL16 8HG

Tel: 01594 810000
council@fdean.gov.uk

Contact/Find us

Max Coborn

The Forest of Dean District Council - Agenda for Full Council on Thursday, 23rd February, 2012, 7.00 pm

Agenda and minutes

Full Council
Thursday, 23rd February, 2012 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Coleford. View directions

Listen to this meeting: Play Audio

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

The chairman, Cllr Stephens, welcomed to the meeting councillors, past and present, the public and David Rees, Independent Remuneration Panel Chairman.

 

No apologies were received.

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 130 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2011.

Minutes:

Members agreed to delete the final two sentences from the paragraph on page 9 beginning with the words Cllr Quaile.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2011 were then confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

3.

Urgent Business

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

Minutes:

The chairman identified no items of urgent business on this occasion.

4.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Cllr Bevan declared a personal interest in item 15 as a bus operator.

Cllr Elsmore declared a personal interest in item 15 as an employee of a bus operator.

Cllr Morgan declared a personal interest in items 10 and 11 regarding the Cinderford northern quarter.

5.

Chairman's announcements

5.1

Welcome Councillor Roger Sterry

The Chairman to welcome Councillor Roger Sterry the new Councillor for the Cinderford West Ward after the by election on 12 January 2012.

Minutes:

Cllr Stephens, Chairman of the Council, welcomed Cllr Roger Sterry to his first Full Council meeting.

 

Cllr Roger Sterry said that it was an honour to be there and that he felt privileged to have been elected to represent the people of Cinderford and the district. He thanked his Labour colleagues and council staff for their help and guidance, He hoped that the late Cllr Beard would be pleased that he had managed to retain the seat for his party.

5.2

Localism Conference

The chairman to inform members that a session on the Localism Act will be held on Thursday 29 March at 7pm for District and Parish Councillors.  This session is being presented with Gloucestershire Association of Parish and Town Councils.

Minutes:

The chairman urged all members to attend the conference to be held on Thursday 29 March at 7pm for District and Parish Councillors.  This session would be presented with Gloucestershire Association of Parish and Town Councils. He believed it would be a 'must attend' event.

6.

Public question time

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, 20 February)

Minutes:

Question 1

The following question has been received from Mr John Belcher, Spion Kop, Joyford Hill, Coleford, Glos. GL16 7AH

 

Can the Councillors inform me it they intend to approve of and allow the demolition of the public Five Acres Sports and Leisure Centre, Coleford, which includes sports pitches, the swimming pool, the gymnasium and the Forest Theatre; all of which are situated on the same campus of what is known as the Gloucestershire College, which is under thereat to be demolished and moved several miles away, to make way for housing development?

 

Response from Councillor Patrick Molyneux, Leader of the Council

 

Thank you for your question. For clarity, I should point out that the recreation facilities you have mentioned at Five Acres belong to the College which leases land now owned by the Homes and Communities Agency.  Public access is achieved through a shared use agreement with the District Council. Significantly, the College has no performing arts students; the theatre therefore offers little benefit to the College.

Next, I should explain that is our hope that the College relocates to a site within the Cinderford Northern Quarter in order to secure the continued delivery of skills needed by local employers. The reason for an educational use within the Northern Quarter reflects the fact that education can have a demonstrable impact upon regeneration; training facilities help to attract employers and generally raise ambition. There is currently significant "leakage" of students out of the Forest to alternative institutions; once gone these same people do not necessarily return to the Forest to contribute to the economy. A similar example is in Cornwall where the further and higher education offers have been improved in order to "hold" students.

However, the decision to relocate is one for the College Governors, who will need to weigh up the pros and cons of remaining in the current under-utilised and inefficient buildings or moving to a new, smaller facility with lower running costs.  Any decision will be made only after the College has undertaken a full feasibility study. It is too early to speculate on the possible outcome of that work. 

Separately, the District Council is currently examining a range of options for the future delivery of community-based leisure facilities.  Again, it is too early to speculate on the outcome. Clearly, the two issues are closely interlinked but no decisions have been made.

At present, there are no proposed alternative uses for the Five Acres site if it was to become wholly or partially vacant. However, at the recent public examination into the Cinderford Northern Quarter Area Action Plan, there was reference to the possibility of a mixed development – that is, housing and employment.

 

Supplementary question

 

Mr Belcher asked if the public would be consulted before the council went any further with the issue.

 

Response from Cllr Molyneux

He confirmed that the council would consult on any major strategy or application, including issues raised in the question.

 

 

Question 2

The following question has been received from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Member questions

7.1

Councillor Maria Edey

How much influence do developers have on this Council?

Minutes:

How much influence do developers have on this Council?        

 

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux 

The Development Industry in its widest sense, i.e. those who wish to build and develop, is essential to the local and national economy. Accordingly, the Council adopts a positive approach to engagement with developers. This is done on the basis of an adopted protocol (Pre-application Advice Protocol) which is available on the Council’s website. Notwithstanding this positive approach, all planning application decisions must be made on their individual planning merits having regard to relevant up to date planning policies and other material considerations. This is demonstrated by the production of a detailed report in respect of all applications determined by the Council. Such reports demonstrate how the balance between the wishes of the applicant (developer) and any third parties has been evaluated.

 

Supplementary question

Cllr Edey wondered if that was the case even if a development was a risk to residents.

7.2

Councillor Maria Edey

Given the size of this authority does the Council need two Strategic Directors?

Minutes:

Given the size of this authority does the Council need two Strategic Directors?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux

In the past four years, senior management at the Council has been reduced by one third.

 

In 2008, the Council had 11 senior managers: the Chief Executive, two Strategic Directors and eight Group Managers

Today, the Council has seven senior managers: two Strategic Directors (one of whom is the  Head of Paid Service) and five Group Managers.

 

In July 2011, the Council agreed not to appoint a Chief Executive but to continue to share the responsibilities of the Chief Executive post between the two Strategic Directors, saving the Council approximately £100,000 every year.

 

The Council has a busy and ambitious programme of projects and savings to deliver over the next two to three years – delivery of which is dependent upon good strategic leadership and management. 

 

It is not the size of the Council, it is the number and nature of projects and other work we are running that needs to drive our structure.  I am confident that our senior management structure is appropriate at present.   You will note, however, that the Medium Term Financial Plan proposes a further reduction in the costs of senior management (and its support) of £200,000 in three years’ time.

 

Supplementary question

Cllr Edey did not think that the response had answered the question.

7.3

Councillor Maria Edey

How many agency workers does this Council employ?

Minutes:

How many agency workers does this Council employ?

 

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

The Council does employ agency workers from time to time to assist with temporary staff vacancies or special projects. All appointments are made in full compliance with council policy and legislation. We currently have 6 Agency staff: 3 in Revenue and benefits; 2 in Customer Services to cover additional work with the new green waste scheme and 1 in Property services

 

Supplementary question

Cllr Edey asked how long the council expected the agency workers dealing with garden waste permits to remain.

 

Response from Cllr Robinson

He took advice and believed that it would be until April 2012.

7.4

Councillor Peter Ede

Can the constitution rules be changed so that the relevant ward member may have their say at a stage 3 complaints panel meeting?

Minutes:

Can the constitution rules be changed so that the relevant ward member may have their say at a stage 3 complaints panel meeting?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux

The council’s customer feedback policy, including our complaints process, is due to be reviewed during 2012/13.  When this review work is undertaken, we will consider how ward members may best be involved in the process in future and will ensure your views are considered.

 

Supplementary question

Cllr Ede asked how members would be involved when the review took place.

 

Response from Cllr Molyneux

He replied that the relevant committee would consider the matter and there would also  be an opportunity for all members to give their thoughts.

8.

Councillor Allowances Scheme 2012/13 pdf icon PDF 113 KB

David Rees, Independent Remuneration Panel Chairman, to present report LD.389 relating to Councillor Allowances for 2012/13.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The chairman welcomed David Rees again and took the opportunity to thank John Evans, the previous chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP), for his many years of dedication as chairman. Members agreed to send John Evans a letter of thanks.

 

David Rees explained that he had lived in St Briavels for 30 years and had been a member of the IRP for two years. He hoped he could follow the example of John Evans.

He presented report LD.389, commenting that the panel's remit was to ensure that allowances paid were sufficient for anyone to become a councillor without being out of pocket. The panel had listened to eight councillors during January and had taken evidence from other local councils and the council's identified 'family' of councils. In their deliberations panel members had been mindful of the current economic conditions, which were affecting elected members in their work. He emphasised that the panel only made recommendations and that if members believed the allowance to be too high, they did not have to claim it. He invited questions.

 

The chairman thanked David Rees and the panel for its work.

 

Cllr Thomson recognised the points in the report and proposed the following amendment, which was seconded by Cllr Molyneux.

 

That recommendation a) in report LD.389 be changed to read 'that the basic allowance remain at the 2011/12 rate of £4250

 

Speaking to his amendment Cllr Thomson agreed that the council needed to encourage a broad membership. He recognised that working councillors could lose pay and pension, so for them there was a real cost. He asked members of the public present to ignore recent claims in local newspaper that allowances were at £10,000. He believed that the council's allowance level was within five per cent or so of the average. He also asked members to bear in mind possible governance changes ahead such as a reduction in membership and a return to a committee style system.

 

Cllr Molyneux thanked David Rees, John Evans and the other panel members for an excellent report and said that it he was sorry to have to turn down their recommendation regarding the basic allowance. He pointed out that the Local Government Association had announced earlier in the day that it would again not be offering an increase to local authority employees. He thought that councillors should act similarly. He too would welcome more diversity in the membership and the council needed to look at ways of attracting a broader representation.

 

Cllr Winship asked which council appointment to an outside body had attracted a special responsibility allowance (SRA) and also why some councils did not pay SRAs to council chairmen and standards committee chairmen.

 

The Democratic Services Manager and Cllr Smart confirmed that an allowance had been paid for one year for being on the county's Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, but that this was no longer the case.

Cllr Hogan reminded members that the chairmen of standards committees were always independent of the council and not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Budget and Council Tax 2012/13

9.1

Treasury Management Strategy 2012/13 pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy, to present the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy 2012/2013, as detailed in report F.153, noted at the Audit Committee on 26 January 2012 and agreed at the Cabinet meeting on 9 February  2012. 

 

Council is recommended to adopt :-

 

 

a.      the Treasury Management Strategy for 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 contained in Annex B.

b.      the prudential and treasury indicators and limits for 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 contained in Annexes A, B and B2 of this report.

c.      the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) statement at paragraph 14 of Annex A of this report which sets out the Council’s policy on MRP.

d.      the Authorised Limit prudential indicator contained at paragraph 14 of Annex B to this report.

e.      the Investment Management Strategy for 2012/2013 contained in paragraphs 28 to 33 of Annex B of this report.

f.  the detailed criteria included in paragraph 44 of annex b to this report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Robinson presented report F.153, explaining that it concerned how the council looked after its investments and any borrowing. He added that the Audit Committee and Cabinet had already considered the report, which included complex but important recommendations put together under the CIPFAS code of practice. The council sought safe institutions for investments and there was an opportunity to invest with other local authorities, which surprisingly offered a better risk than other places. He invited the Group Manager for Finance and Property to explain specific points.

 

The Group Manager emphasised that while prudential indicators had to be in place to control borrowing, the council did not borrow any money. Changes from the previous year included a tighter definition of part-nationalised bank (agenda page 45), the inclusion of treasury bonds and security bonds from AAA rated institutions. There was also the possibility for alternative investment to complement the council's work on areas such as housing, and a report would be presented to the Cabinet in May. Also the possibility to borrow at low fixed rates were an option, but would need to be agreed by the Cabinet.

 

Cllr Birch, Audit Committee Chairman, said that the committee considered treasury management at all of its meetings. The Audit Commission had commended the council's strategy with no qualification, which represented the best report for many years.

 

Cllr Thomson asked if the strategy was the responsibility of Full Council or the Cabinet.

Cllr Robinson replied that the Cabinet considered options for better outcomes, but would need to consult widely to gain a strategic direction and broad feedback.

The Solicitor to the Council clarified that Full Council was responsible for setting strategy, such as borrowing limits and capital expenditure, and that the Cabinet made decisions within that strategic framework.

 

Cllr Thomson asked how spending reserves was controlled, given that the council had over £4 million in reserves.

The Solicitor to the Council explained that there were many controls. The Audit Committee had an important role in overseeing the strategy and the Group Manager for Finance and Property would report to Full Council, if he were unhappy.

 

Cllr Winship expressed unease at being expected to vote on a report that she did not fully understand and suggested that the language be more layman-friendly. She asked for clarification on agenda page 42, paragraph 17.4.

The Group Manager for Finance and Property and that there would be specific training from the council's advisers before one of the next two Audit Committee meetings, to which all members were welcome. He explained that at present borrowing was more expensive than lending so only suitable where the council had a guaranteed return.

 

The chairman added that there had been a useful training session earlier in the month, but realised that some members had been unable to make it.

 

Cllr Molyneux commented that the report dealt with complex issues and that the council was lucky to have excellent officers who managed treasury work. He cited the group manager's actions to withdraw investment with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.1

9.2

Council Budget 2012/2013 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/2015 pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy, to present the Council’s final budget proposals for 2012/13 and medium term financial plan for the period to 2015 as detailed in report F.152 and agreed at the Cabinet meeting on 9 February  2012. 

 

The Council is recommended by Cabinet to agree:

a)     to note the assurance of the Chief Financial Officer who has reviewed the financial risks being faced by the Council and given his opinion on the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2003;

b)     a net budget for 2012/2013 of £10,373,280 and a council tax requirement of £4,783,880;

c)      that there be no increase in council tax for 2012/2013 (a freezing of Band D council tax at £162.29); and

d)     the 2012-2015 capital programme.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Robinson presented report F.152, explaining that the blue annexes distributed at the beginning of the meeting replaced the original ones. The recommendations remained unchanged. He was proud that in the five years he had been delivering the budget, the average increase in council tax had been only 1.2 per cent.

The surplus of £45,000 identified at the Cabinet meeting held on 9 February meant that he now proposed for the first year of operation that car park charges would be 20 pence for the first hour and 50 pence for two hours to ease the impact of changes. This move recognised responses highlighting concerns over the current trading environment from the consultation that finished that day. The surplus would be reduced to £4,500 and the shortfall in the medium term would be £19,000.

The council would have made savings of £2.3 million by the end of 2012/13 and that total would increase to £3 million.

He reported that the trend in planning fee income represented an on-going challenge while the success in reducing waste collection costs should be noted. The way in which the council managed a 10 per cent reduction in council tax benefit grant was under review. Passing on the cut could impact on low income working families while absorbing the cut within council operation would be challenging.

He thanked all the council staff, who had shown commitment and enthusiasm to help the council find different ways of working at lower cost.

He clarified that staff costs were negotiated at national level and confirmed that the LGA had offered no increase for 2012/13.

In summary he said that the proposed budget built on the work of previous years. It provided good value for money and sound financial management as evidenced by the Audit Commission's opinion. It retained good quality services for local people, no increase in council tax or existing charged services and continued to support funding for housing. 

 

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Molyneux seconded the motion at the agenda with amended annexes.

 

Cllr Martin proposed and Cllr O'Neill seconded an amendment on behalf of the Labour group to approve an alternative budget, which proposed an increase of 3.4 per cent on council tax bills.

 

The proposed amendment rejected the one-year 'bribe' by central government to keep Council tax stagnant and avoided the imposition of car parking charges to cover car park maintenance costs. The proposal would balance the books by taking £45,900 out of the Initiatives reserve - far less than the proposed budget, which would take a much larger amount for set up costs.

The modest rise in council tax would equate to nine pence per week for the average household, which equates to £5.52p per year for a Band D property.

The Labour group acknowledged the budgetary difficulties facing this council due to the current economic recession and extreme austerity measures being imposed on us from above and anticipate the situation worsening in future years. However, they could not justify imposing any more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.2

9.3

Council Tax Resolution 2012/13 pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy, to present report F.151. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Robinson presented report F.151, explaining that it set out the impact on council tax of the budget. He explained that annex C on agenda page 101 had been replaced due to errors.

 

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Molyneux seconded the recommendations as at the agenda.

 

 

RESOLVED -

 

1.

It be noted that on 16th December 2011 the Council calculated the Council Tax Base 2012/2013

 

(a)              for the whole Council area as 29,477.45 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the "Act")]; and

 

 

(b)              for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parish precept relates as in the attached Appendix C.

 

 

 

2.

Calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2012/2013 (excluding Parish precepts) is £4,783,880.

 

 

 

3.

That the following amounts be calculated  for the year 2012/2013 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

 

 

 

(a)

£45,816,954

being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils.

(b)

£39,354,910

being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.

(c)

£6,462,044

being the amount by which the aggregate at 3(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act).

(d)

£219.22

being the amount at 3(c) above (Item R), all divided by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts).

 

(e)

£1,678,164

being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per the attached Appendix B).

(f)

£162.29

being the amount at 3(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(e) above by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish precept relates.

 

4.          To note that the County Council, the Police Authority and the Fire Authority have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area.

5.             That the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the table below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2012/2013 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.

Precepting Authority

Band A

£

Band B

£

Band C

£

Band D

£

Band E

£  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.3

10.

Core Strategy (Formal Adoption) pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy to present report EDP.48 and the recommendation that the Council formally adopt the Core Strategy.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Robinson presented report EDP.48, commenting that the core strategy had been fully debated a year ago and had taken five years with much consultation and the inspector's review to get to this point of formal adoption. He asked members to note that FBE 17 of the old local plan would be deleted.

He believed that the core strategy would be a solid base offering a clear framework upon which to build future policy.

 

Cllr Gardiner agreed that the core strategy had been through the scrutiny process, which had done an excellent job. He had asked for clarity on how Forest Waste was designated, because of concern over the future of the forest. Working with officers and members on planning policy he had wanted heritage designation. He said that the issue of land exchange was also important. He believed that the core strategy put at risk areas of the Cinderford northern quarter by designating land as effectively a building plot. The government's Independent Panel on Forestry stated that no land should be sold to make up any shortfalls. He believed that all of those issues should be subject to further scrutiny.

 

 

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Quaile seconded the recommendation as at the agenda.

 

RESOLVED - to adopt the Core Strategy as modified as a consequence of incorporating all of the inspector's recommendations.

 

Voting was as follows.

 

For (38) –Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Philip Burford, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, Roger Sterry, David Thomson, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

 

 

Against (2) – Arthur Thomas, Andrew Gardiner

 

Abstained (5) - Norman Stephens, Maria Edey, Clive Elsmore, Paul Hiett, Helen Stewart

11.

Cinderford Northern Quarter Area Action Plan (Formal Adoption) pdf icon PDF 121 KB

Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux to present report EDP.49 and the recommendation that the Council formally adopt the Cinderford Northern Quarter Area Action Plan.  

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Molyneux presented report EDP.49, commenting that the plan had been developed over many years and had included many consultations and processes. He thanked the Forward Plan team for its work in putting together the plan and conducting the exhaustive consultation. He understood Cllr Gardiner's concerns, but all interested parties had had the opportunity to contribute their views. There was now the exciting prospect of seeing the delivery of real benefits of regeneration.

 

Cllr Gardiner believed that the process had not been thorough and that there would be serious implications in adopting the plan. He thought that it was illogical to regenerate one town by degenerating another, if the college move took place. He had been involved for many years in seeking the best route for a much-needed bypass for Steam Mills and thought that phase one of the plan delivered almost all of the objectives. However he questioned the need to extend the route by a further two thirds of a mile, thus adversely affecting a bio diverse area of tranquillity and obliterating the district's mining heritage.

Cllr Martin said that she was confused at Cllr Gardiner's vision of that part of Cinderford, which had been an industrial area.  She valued and used the town's woodland area, but this plan had been 30 years in the making and did conserve the environment. The people wanted action to regenerate that area to provide for the future.

 

Cllr Coborn endorsed the plan and read a letter from Steam Mills Primary School welcoming the diversion of heavy traffic from its doorstep.

 

Cllr Edey had fears that the site at Five Acres might be lost and that the town of Cinderford above the regeneration area would die. She did welcome an eco-centre at the Northern United site.

 

Cllr Morgan agreed that many routes had been considered.  Having just come through a recession he believed that the current proposed route was the best the district would get to divert traffic from Steam Mills, the school and houses whose fronts were right at the roadside. He said that wildlife surveys had happened and would continue. Bat migration had been taken into consideration and English Heritage had walked the site, declaring no buildings to be of value, although he supported the retention of the manager's office as a fitting memorial to the area's mining heritage. He noted that no one had campaigned to support the last remaining example of a Cornish engine house at the Lightmoor works. Cinderford Town Council supported the plan and the conservation of Birchwood and Hawkwell enclosures. If left as it was, he could envisage the land being bought and used to park up lorries.

 

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the recommendation as at the agenda.

 

RESOLVED - To approve the Cinderford Northern Quarter Area Action Plan as modified following the Inspector’s recommendations, to enable this Development Plan Document to be formally adopted as part of the Forest of Dean District Local Development Framework.

 

Voting was as follows.

 

For (43)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Review of Parliamentary and Local Government Polling Districts, Polling Places and Polling Stations 2011 pdf icon PDF 98 KB

To consider report LD.394 relating to the review of Parliamentary and Local Government Polling Districts, Polling Places and Polling Stations 2011.

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

13.

Pay Policy Statement 2012/13 (LOCALISM ACT 2011) pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy to present report LD.396.  The Council to consider and adopt the Pay Policy Statement to meet the statutory obligations of Section 38 (1) of the Localism Act 2011. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

14.

Council Response to the Progress report of the Independent Panel on Forestry pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Councillor Andrew Gardiner, Cabinet Forest Champion to present report SD.86 relating to the response from the Council to the progress report of the Independent Panel on Forestry.

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

15.

Bus Links Scrutiny Inquiry pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Councillor Marion Winship, Panel chairman to present report LD.395 relating to the Bus Links Inquiry. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

16.

Notice of motions

16.1

Councillor Marrilyn Smart OBE

That this Council very much welcomes the agreement between the public sector in Gloucestershire and the Armed Forces that will pave the way for more integration of Armed Forces Personnel in their community and enable funding for community initiatives.

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

16.2

Councillor Jane Horne

That this Council marks the momentous events of this year namely the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games by planting two trees in the Arboraetum and a Diamond Jubilee rose in the Council garden.

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

16.3

Councillor Paul Hiett

I move that this Council establishes a cross party task group to investigate models of governance as a credible and inclusive alternative to the current system.  This task group will be politically balanced, having the power to elect its own chair and make recommendations back to Full Council for a decision.

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

16.4

Councillor Andrew Gardiner

For this Council to consider further the Council Woodland Advisory Group’s response to the Independent Forestry Panel’s interim progress report, including an  open invitation for  the Independent Forestry Panel to make a return visit to the Royal Forest of Dean to consider the setting up of a School of Forestry Excellence at the  Northern United Buildings along with the site and buildings at the cable works in  Stowfield. This site was identified for the Panel’s visit last year 2011. However at this crucial and delicate  stage of the IFP work to inform the Government relating to the future direction of Forest policy, it is imperative that the associated status quo is maintained until they complete their final report and outcomes. “Therefore  this Council urges its partners at the Cinderford Regeneration Board, The Forestry Commission and Homes & Community Agency – to delay their  proposals to demolish the heritage buildings of Northern United Colliery to allow this option to be fully considered.”

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.

17.

Cabinet and scrutiny committee reports pdf icon PDF 107 KB

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

Minutes:

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 1 March 2012.