To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Paul Hiett, Val Hobman, Bernie O'Neill and David Thomson.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2012 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

The Chairman identified no items of urgent business.

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.

Cllr Quaile declared an 'other' interest in item 11.3 as chairman of the Severn Estuary Partnership, commenting that anything he expressed at the meeting would be his own personal views.

Cllr Stephens, Chairman of the Council, displayed a waistcoat made from ties, made by one of the people he had met at the Gloucestershire College awards ceremony for entrepreneurs, at which he had presented the awards. The college ran 16-week courses for entrepreneurs of all ages to help them with such skills as marketing.

The Chairman invited councillors, officers and members of the public to join him in the members' room after the meeting for mince pies, kindly donated by Cllr Connell.

The Chairman reminded councillors that the annual quiz was being held in the chamber on Monday 17 December and invited them to take part.

The Chairman to thank everyone involved for their efforts in organising the charity dinner at Whitemead Forest Park on Friday 23 November 2012.

The Chairman thanked everyone involved for their efforts in organising the charity dinner at Whitemead Forest Park on Friday 23 November 2012, which had raised over £2,500.

The Chairman to confirm that the carol service will be held on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 6.30pm at the Holy Trinity Church, (Forest Church), Drybrook.

The Chairman confirmed that the carol service would be held on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 6.30pm at the Holy Trinity Church, (Forest Church), Drybrook. He urged councillors to attend.

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, 10 December 2012)

Question 1

The following questions have been received from Andrew Maliphant, 17 High Street, Mitcheldean, Glos GL17 0AT

a)     What were the costs of managing the parking charges in the Forest, including enforcement costs, from July - September 2012?

b)     What has been the total income from Mitcheldean car park for July - September, and October - November?

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

a)     The budgeted cost is £13,648.  No recharge has been received from Gloucester City.  Any payment would be “on-account” as the final cost will depend on the final allocation between on-street and off-street enforcement.

b)     The total income from Mitcheldean car park for July to November 2012 inclusive is as follows:

July                       £582.30

August                  £549.70

September             £523.50

October                £639.30

November                       £594.10

This information is available on the council’s website at www.fdean.gov.uk and

is updated monthly

Supplementary question

Mr Maliphant was not at the meeting, so the answer to his question would be sent to him.

Question 2

The following questions have been received from Colin Guyton, The Great Barn, Park Farm, High Street, Ruardean, Glos GL17 9US

NORTHERN QUARTER

a)      At the July Meeting of the Council Councillor Molyneux advised that the Highways Department would be speaking to Local Councils about the new link road at Steam Mills/Northern Quarter. Would he please give an update as to how this is progressing particularly giving information on who has been consulted, when and their responses?

b)      The Forest of Dean – Cinderford Investment Prospectus 2026 states on page 6 that more tourists are visiting the Forest of Dean taking advantage of improved highway links from the M5 and M50. Would the council please explain what improvements have been made to the links to Cinderford from the M50 over the last 5 years and at what cost?

c)      The Prospectus referred to above details 55,500square metres (over 500,000 square feet) of new commercial premises. Bearing in mind the already empty commercial space in the Forest of Dean what plans have been made to fill the existing space as well as the new space.

Response from Councillor Patrick Molyneux, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration

a)      Highways are a County Council issue.  At the Council meeting in July this year, in response to a question asked by Mr Guyton, I said that the County Council’s Highways Department would be hosting public information sharing sessions, which would include parish councils.  These events are now being planned for February 2013 by when the design work for the road should be complete. 

b)      The Cinderford Investment Prospectus is a vision of how things could be in 2026.  It is aspirational and its aim is to attract investment.

c)      We work closely with GFirst and the Gloucestershire LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) to promote the Forest of Dean. The Prospectus is basing the marketing offer on lifestyle entrepreneurs and the green economy.  The emerging AAP (Area Action Plan) for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Question to the Leader/Deputy Leader.

The Labour Government introduced a three year budget plan that enabled Local Government to not only understand the budgetary implications for three years, but also to plan ahead for those three years, being able to evaluate fully the requirements and  needs of the authority. It also gave stability to those organisations that depend on the authority for Service Level Agreements.

This Government has no such plan, and instead, the Secretary of State makes his pronouncement very late in the financial year. There is in the current year a sum from him of £118,000 as a one-off settlement in order to keep the Council Tax at the same level as last year. However, this meant that the Administration was left with a gap which they had to fill by introducing measures including car parking charges and a charge for the collection of garden waste, even though these were already being paid for within the Council Tax. Consequently, next year’s base budget will be lower than if Council Tax had been increased in the last budget.

For next year the Secretary of State will expect the same level of Council Tax and will provide a sum of money to help facilitate that, but split into two – 1% per year or £47,000 p.a. for 2 years.

a)     How does the Administration propose to fill any shortfall in this current year’s budget and also any gap in next year’s financial settlement?

b)     Will the Administration also lobby the Government to introduce a three year budget plan to help the financial planning process?

Question to the Leader/Deputy Leader.

The Labour Government introduced a three year budget plan that enabled Local Government to not only understand the budgetary implications for three years, but also to plan ahead for those three years, being able to evaluate fully the requirements and  needs of the authority. It also gave stability to those organisations that depend on the authority for Service Level Agreements.

This Government has no such plan, and instead, the Secretary of State makes his pronouncement very late in the financial year. There is in the current year a sum from him of £118,000 as a one-off settlement in order to keep the Council Tax at the same level as last year. However, this meant that the Administration was left with a gap which they had to fill by introducing measures including car parking charges and a charge for the collection of garden waste, even though these were already being paid for within the Council Tax. Consequently, next year’s base budget will be lower than if Council Tax had been increased in the last budget.

For next year the Secretary of State will expect the same level of Council Tax and will provide a sum of money to help facilitate that, but split into two – 1% per year or £47,000 p.a. for 2 years.

a)      How does the Administration propose to fill any shortfall in this current year’s budget and also any gap in next year’s financial settlement?

b)      Will the Administration also lobby the Government to introduce a three year budget plan to help the financial planning process?

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

The latest projections for this year (second quarter performance) showed a projected in year overspend/shortfall of £44,500.  There remains an uncommitted sum of £70,000 in the contingency budget for 2012/2013 that can be used to meet this if necessary.  However, Group Managers are working together to deliver the necessary savings by the end of March.

The draft budget report to December Cabinet has highlighted a potential shortfall of £87,580 on 2013/2014.  It is proposed to underwrite this risk by one-off use of New Homes Bonus.  If the contingency of £70,000 highlighted above is not used then this would be available to supplement the 2013/2014 budget if necessary.

Supplementary question

Cllr O'Neill was not at the meeting.

Question to the Leader/Deputy Leader.

Is the suspension of car parking charges on Saturdays in the run up to Christmas designed to encourage people to shop in the main towns within the Forest of Dean?

Question to the Leader/Deputy Leader.

Is the suspension of car parking charges on Saturdays in the run up to Christmas designed to encourage people to shop in the main towns within the Forest of Dean?

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

The decision was taken to work with traders to provide complementary support to their own seasonal promotions in the approach to Christmas.  There was also free parking provided for the Christmas lights ceremonies that did not fall on Saturday.

Supplementary question

Cllr O'Neill was not at the meeting.

In the light of the recent election of the new Police and Crime Commissioner and his commitment to maintain the police station in Coleford, would the Cabinet member please tell us how the predicted income from the shared office space of £20,000 will now be achieved?

In the light of the recent election of the new Police and Crime Commissioner and his commitment to maintain the police station in Coleford, would the Cabinet member please tell us how the predicted income from the shared office space of £20,000 will now be achieved?

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

The latest budget report has re-profiled a target saving from accommodation rentals of £20,000 evenly across the two years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015.

It is disappointing that the Police and Crime Commissioner has confirmed that the co-location of services will not take place.  Both parties have worked hard to find a solution and would have produced positive outcomes for both the Council and the police.  Other public sector organisations have expressed an interest in sharing accommodation so there remains a possibility of renting office space in the future.  Rentals on the Council’s industrial units remains buoyant and this area may also provide the additional income to meet this target.  The Council has adequate reserves to meet a £10,000 shortfall, should it occur.

Supplementary question

Cllr Martin asked what the current reserve positions was, given that the Council would probably have to continue to meet shortfalls from reserves.

Response from the Group Manager for Finance and Property

The group manager said that there was a £900,000 working balance and a further seven figure amount that the Council could call on in an emergency.

Given that the vacancy for the Community Engagement Officer with responsibility for Community Safety cannot be filled for at least two months, would the Cabinet member explain how this important area of the Council’s work will still remain a high priority in the interim and how the Council will endeavour to fill the vacant post as soon as possible?

Given that the vacancy for the Community Engagement Officer with responsibility for Community Safety cannot be filled for at least two months, would the Cabinet member explain how this important area of the Council’s work will still remain a high priority in the interim and how the Council will endeavour to fill the vacant post as soon as possible?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Community, Councillor Terry Hale

The Community Safety responsibilities form only part of the duties of the vacant post in question.  As with all of vacancy management we will do the best we can to absorb essential tasks within the remainder of the team.

Supplementary question

Cllr Martin, as chair of the Domestic Violence Forum, asked which officer would be the link, particularly given that there was a planned Community Safety Partnership meeting in the following week.

Response from Cllr Diana Edwards, Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships and Projects

Cllr Edwards replied that it had been right for Cllr Hale to answer the original question, because his portfolio included the Community Engagement Team. However, she was responsible for the Community Safety Partnership.

With the Chairman's permission Cllr Martin said that she was concerned, because she had no access to relevant telephone numbers and email addresses, given the quick departure of the officer responsible for community safety.

Cllr Hale replied that officers had met the chair of the Community Safety Partnership and that the email issues were being resolved. The meeting on 19 December would go ahead and communication would continue to be good, because of close working relationships.

a)     What was the total cost of running the Police and Crime Commissioner   Election?

b)     How much did the District Council recover from the Home Office to off set this cost?

c)      How much per vote cast did the Police and Crime Commissioner Election cost?

a)     What was the total cost of running the Police and Crime Commissioner   Election?

b)     How much did the District Council recover from the Home Office to off set this cost?

How much per vote cast did the Police and Crime Commissioner Election cost?

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux

The total final costs are unavailable at the present as we are awaiting invoices for various items including postage and miscellaneous printing costs. The estimated overall costs are £101,294. The Home Office will cover all these costs.

These costs equate to £10.38 per voter.

Supplementary question

Cllr Burford believed that considerable time was given by officers to help with the election and asked if all costs, including that time were covered.

Response from the Solicitor to the Council

As the responsible group manager, the Solicitor replied that all officer time spent on election work  was charged to Elections.

To consider report E.49 relating to the Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles 2012.

Cllr Quaile, Cabinet Member for Environment, presented report E.49. He explained that the Council needed the full document to be able to make its decision and that the report concerned the Council meeting its statutory obligations. Even though there had been very little change to the government guidance, consultation had still been required. He ended by saying that the statement would be published on 20 December 2012.

Cllr Lawton, chairman of the Licensing Committee, confirmed for Cllr Gardiner that the committee had fully debated the matter and that it had gone before all the necessary bodies in the consultation.

Cllr Quaile Proposed and Cllr Lawton seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to adopt the Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles as set out in Annex A of report E.49 and to note the requirement to keep the Statement under review

Voting was as follows

For (42) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart OBE, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Maria Edey, Dave East, Ian Whitburn, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Frank Baynham, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, Roger Sterry, Bill Evans, Bruce Hogan, Don Pugh, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0) –

Abstain (0) -

Report F.186 relating to Localising Council Tax Support and Discounts.

Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy, presented report F.186, commenting that it resulted from the Welfare Reform Act. Council Tax benefit would change to a discount to be administered at district council level with 10 per cent less funding from central; government. This shortfall amounted to around £84,000 for the Council, although central government was giving a grant for the first year of £20,979 if the full cost was not being passed on to existing claimants. Councils across the county were looking for a consistent approach.

The Council wanted to ensure that the impact was not disproportionate for the working families on low incomes, so proposed changing discounts in other areas. The Council had consulted on these proposed changes as at the annexes to the report.

Cllr McMahon thought that to give exemption to landlords for one month to enable reletting was unrealistic, as it generally took a minimum of two months. He also considered the consultation not to have been thorough and to have involved leading questions.

Cllr Martin said that she realised that this change had been imposed by central government and accepted that the Council had to make the recommendations as at the report. She was concerned about the Council's ability to continue to help fill the 10 per cent shortfall in future years and about the possibility of landlords increasing rents to cover increased costs.

Cllr Robinson replied that the process had enabled the Council to address younger, but not older people. The recommendations allowed time for all six local councils to find a better way forward for residents, while protecting the most vulnerable in the short term and mitigating costs. The proposals were proportionate to the ability to pay and it was important to give incentives for property owners get properties back into use.

He added that central government had to make savings, that it was important that those be spread across the country and it was good that decisions were local to allow input from the Council.

Cllr Martin could not agree about the impact of government decisions on local authorities and communities.

Cllr Hogan thought it ludicrous that second tier authorities were made to administer these changes, when they received the least, compared with the police and county councils. He believed that it was redolent of the unitary argument and was a way of shifting blame from central government. He applauded the Cabinet for protecting the vulnerable and working with other authorities, but he thought that it would become more difficult as more cuts were imposed by central government.

The Solicitor to the Council clarified that Cllr McMahon, as a landlord, did not need to declare an interest. Monitoring Officers across the country did not currently regard this matter or paying council tax as statutory interests

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Molyneux seconded the motion at the agenda.

RESOLVED - to

a)     maintain existing levels of benefit by adopting the “default Scheme” for council tax discount for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report LD.444 an update on the work of the Governance Options Group.

Cllr Edey, chairman of the Governance Options Task Group (GOG), presented report LD.444, commenting that recommendations f) and g) would be deferred for the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny to consider and to be looked at in other ways. Recommendations a) to e) remained.

Cllr Burford asked why the Kent model had been brought into the discussion.

Cllr Edey replied that the Solicitor to the Council had brought back the model from a conference and that the GOG had thought it sensible. Additionally Cllr Hogan had raised a similar idea previously.

Cllr Molyneux, who had been a member of GOG, suggested a friendly amendment to remove the text in recommendation c) after the word system, to acknowledge that the group's work had moved forward and to avoid going over old ground.

Cllrs Edey and Hogan did not accept the amendment.

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Diana Edwards seconded the amendment to remove the text in recommendation c) after the word system, to read

c) Not to progress at this time any move to a Committee based system.

Cllr Hogan said that the amendment did not reflect the difficult consensus arrived at by the GOG. He added that the Conservative members of the group had been overwhelmingly Cabinet members, which had skewed matters. He had been reluctantly happy to support the report's recommendations, because of a sense of realism about rapidly declining resources. It would be unreasonable to agree to a full committee system without the ability of Democratic Services to support it, so the group also needed to consider other models. He believed that to accept the amendment would be to nail down the Cabinet system and the leader was shrewdly trying to pervert the outcome of uneasy consensus reached in the group. The group needed to consider the retention of an executive with greater controls.

The chairman said that the GOG had met many times to reach consensus and asked if Cllr Molyneux would consider withdrawing his amendment.

Cllr Molyneux agreed to withdraw his amendment, but said that it had only intended to help focus the GOG's work, recognising that the Council did not have the resources to support a committee system.

Cllr Diana Edwards agreed to withdraw the amendment.

Cllr Bill Evans wondered what was different about this Council, given that Stroud and South Gloucestershire had returned to the committee system.

Cllr McMahon agreed that the work of the GOG had been difficult and occasionally a waste of time. He had been surprised that three Cabinet members had been part of the group, because it represented a conflict of interest in his opinion. He supported the recommendations.

Cllr Burford, as chairman of the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee, had been initially concerned about the deleted recommendations. He asked that the GOG gave the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee adequate time to form a judgement on how it would organise itself in the future, ready for the annual meeting of Full Council in May 2013.

Cllr Edey proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

That this Council recognise the need for members to keep in touch in this digital age and therefore resolve to arrange access by members  to  their council email accounts from mobile phones as soon as possible.

That this Council recognise the need for members to keep in touch in this digital age and therefore resolve to arrange access by members to their council email accounts from mobile phones as soon as possible.

Speaking to his motion Cllr Whitburn said that he was now aware that councillors with tablet computers could access their emails on the move and wanted know if it would be possible to read council emails on mobile phones.

The Head of Paid Service confirmed that the Council had recently completed a pilot with I-Pads and I-Phones. However, any platform needed to be compliant with the Government Connect security code. Hopefully in the near future members would also be able to gain access via other platforms.

Cllr Hogan asked if it were technically possible to filter emails so that those generated internally arrived in a separate folder.

The Head of Paid Service said that she would find out and respond after the meeting.

Cllr Robinson said that he had been using his I-Pad for Council email and that the system worked well. He added that while both the county council and this Council used Issue Manager to generate meeting documents, the county had switched on the facility to register interest in certain meetings and automatically receive documents for them.

Cllr Burford had been asking about mobile communications since the introduction of the Code of Connection, but unfortunately to no avail, even having purchased software that he thought would be compliant. Since the vast majority of emails sent and received were unclassified, he asked if a way could be found to allow those to be sent to mobile devices without the need for security.

The Head of Paid Service said that she would take into account that request

Cllr Whitburn proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - That this Council recognise the need for members to keep in touch in this digital age and therefore resolve to arrange access by members to their council email accounts from mobile phones as soon as possible.

Voting was as follows.

For (42) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart OBE, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Maria Edey, Dave East, Ian Whitburn, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Frank Baynham, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, Roger Sterry, Bill Evans, Bruce Hogan, Don Pugh, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0)

Abstain (1) - Julia Gooch

That this Council recognise the negative impact of parking charges on the village of Mitcheldean and the businesses that operate from there.

In the light of this, the Council resolves to recommend that the Cabinet remove the charges from the District Council owned car park in the village centre of Mitcheldean with immediate effect.

That this Council recognise the negative impact of parking charges on the village of Mitcheldean and the businesses that operate from there.

In the light of this, the Council resolves to recommend that the Cabinet remove the charges from the District Council owned car park in the village centre of Mitcheldean with immediate effect.

Speaking to his motion Cllr Whitburn emphasised that Mitcheldean was a village, with the same facilities as most villages. It was not a town, so there was nothing to do for an hour, having paid the charge. He had recently received from the parish council a document containing187comments about the difficulties of parking. Since Mitcheldean had a car park that was part of the charging regime, he wondered why Bream and Drybrook had none, given that they were bigger.

Cllr Whitburn proposed and Cllr Fraser seconded the motion.

Cllr McMahon believed that the income from the Mitcheldean car park would only total about £45 per week and wondered if that outweighed the negative impact on businesses. He was also concerned for the people of Redbrook, whose car park incurred charges seven days a week.

He suggested a friendly amendment to include Redbrook in the motion, but neither Cllr Whitburn nor Cllr Martin accepted it.

Cllr McMahon proposed and Cllr Bill Evans Seconded the amendment to include Redbrook car park in the motion.

Cllr Robinson asserted that availability in Mitcheldean car park had increased since charging, that there was free parking near the shops and income was proportionate to expectations. He believed that to make this change to the regime before the agreed review in July 2013 would be disruptive and would lead to other motions. He reminded councillors that these measures had been taken within a context of having to make savings. He conceded that Mitcheldean was small, but very busy, as he had seen while working as a volunteer in the library, having paid for his parking space. If that car park were taken out of the charging regime it would not reduce the overheads. He accepted that the motion had been well intentioned and that many people found paying to park tedious but it represented paying for what they need. He repeated that the Council should wait until the review in July 2013 before making any changes.

Cllr Bill Evans reminded members that the previous council had decided against introducing charges against a similar economic background. The negative impact was being felt across the district.  One shop owner, forced to close, blamed all the councillors, although he thought that just five had effectively made the decision. In Redbrook, residents were being 'double-charged' and cars were being parked in many side streets.

Cllr Hogan was sympathetic to the original motion, but did not know Redbrook well enough to form a view. He was clear that the Council's car parks needed regulating to stop vehicles being left for days, which was not what the Council car parks were for. He had concerns over the way in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.2

In view of the increasing number of planning applications for wind turbines in the Forest of Dean district,  this Council should adopt a specific Wind Turbine Planning Policy to include a restriction on their proximity to residential properties according to their height.

In view of the increasing number of planning applications for wind turbines in the Forest of Dean district, this Council should adopt a specific Wind Turbine Planning Policy to include a restriction on their proximity to residential properties according to their height.

Speaking to her motion, Cllr Winship emphasised that it concerned strengthening the Council’s position in planning, particularly at appeal, and reducing the risk to local inhabitants in the case of accidents or mechanical failure. She said that there was a serious health & safety issue, giving several examples of failure, noise pollution and wind flicker.

She also mentioned the effect on visual amenity and property prices.

She continued by asserting that a specific planning policy would simplify the process and reduce the need for such lengthy applications.

She asked if by placing them in our rural and agricultural landscape we were risking the loss of our countryside to industrialisation. 

To have a policy would be neither controversial nor unusual. Throughout the UK there were many councils that already had policies, all with restrictions on distance from dwellings ranging from 500m to 2 kms.

Her motion did not seek to go into detail. She believed that the Planning Policy Group should work out the detail, so that the policy was strong, water tight and gave the district and its residents the protection they needed.

Cllr Winship proposed and Cllr Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.

Cllr Quaile said that he had sympathy with the first part of the motion, but that there were many aspects other than distance that needed consideration, such as sound wind data and the effect of development on surrounding land. He also mentioned recent developments in other energy sources, including solar power, ground and air source heat pumps, and obtaining gas from fracking.

Cllr Robinson, as the responsible Cabinet member, said that he was neither for nor against the motion, but was in favour of a robust planning policy. He announced that the Planning Policy Group meeting to consider a wind turbine policy would be held in public on 21 January 2013. This complex issue would require a lot of work to satisfy the Council's Core Strategy. If the policy were too wide, inclusive and exacting it could be open to challenge at appeal. There was a need to demonstrate that any policy was proportionate and appropriate. If the policy was simplistic, the district could have a proposal that met all the criteria, but was not deemed desirable. The council had already agreed and refused wind turbine applications, applying the Core Strategy. He did not think that Full Council should pre-empt the work of the Planning Policy Group and public consultation by prescribing aspects of the policy and suggested that the motion end at the word policy.

Cllr Martin proposed and Cllr Lawton seconded the amendment to delete all words after the word policy.

Cllr Lawton thought that it was important to consider all new technology and did not wish to predetermine the work of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.3

That the Forest of Dean District Council

(i) supports the bottom up process set up by the Sustainable Communities Act that enables councils to drive action and assistance that central government gives councils to promote thriving local economies and communities;

(ii) notes that the Act gives councils the power to make proposals to government for action and assistance from government to promote sustainable communities, and that those proposals can be for, but are not restricted to, new powers, removal of bureaucratic hurdles or a transfer of public money and related function from central control to local control;

(iii) notes that the Act defines sustainable communities broadly, that definition having the four aspects of

the improvement of the local economy,

protection of the environment,

promotion of social inclusion and wellbeing, and

increasing participation in civic, political and democratic activity;

(iv) resolves to use the Act by inviting residents to come forward with proposals for action and assistance from central government and submitting those proposals, along with others the Council may have, each year; and

(v) further resolves:

to inform the local media of this decision;

to write to local MPs, informing them of this decision; and

to write to Local Works (at Local Works, c/o Unlock Democracy, 37 Gray’s Inn Rd, London WC1X 8PQ or info@localworks.org) informing them of this resolution.”

Cllr O'Neill was not present at the meeting and his motion was deferred.

The Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the Strategic Overview and 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

Cllr Coborn asked when the work on the Cinderford leisure centre would begin and so when the money would be spent.

Cllr Molyneux replied that the Council was keen to spend the money and that it was in the hands of the academy school and other groups. He would take Cllr Coborn's point into account when moving the matter forward quickly.

Cllr Burford commented that the Five Acres Complex Inquiry had run a successful information gathering session and would meet at Lakers School on 31 January 2013 to present the report to the committee and the public. He urged members to attend.