To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Keith Aburrow, Georgina Bensted, Derek Biddle, Roy Birch, Clive Brain, Dennis Dormer, Nikki Goodlad, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Des Saunders, Marrilyn Smart, Marion Winship and Roger Yeates.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 2 December 2010 and 8 December 2010.

Members agreed the following amendments.

2 December 2010 – page 6, item 7 final paragraph to read ‘The petition asked that the Council develops a planning policy and guidance on the distance between buffer zones relating to large wind turbines and human habitation.

8 December 2010 – page 24, item 11.2 final paragraph to read ‘Cllr Long was concerned that if the motion was agreed, added to the proposed continuing freeze on allowances and reduction in mileage allowance, members would end up having to pay for the privilege of being councillors.

The minutes of the meetings held on 2 December 2010 and 8 December 2010 were then confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

The vice chairman had no items of urgent business.

However he informed members that following Cllr Gardiner’s motion at the meeting on 8 December 2010 a delegation, including eight councillors, two journalists and five experts, would be travelling to the House of Lords on 17 January. The Council had also sent the letters agreed in the motion and had already received five replies, all of which were favourable or approaching that.

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.

Cllr Quaile declared a prejudicial interest in item 7d as a Dean Heritage Trust member.

Cllr Thomson declared a personal interest in item 7d as the Council’s appointed representative on Dean Heritage Trust.

Cllr Horne declared a personal interest in item 7d.

That this Council’s press and publicity officer takes to task mis reporting by the press if this causes distress or is detrimental to the good name of the council, the officers or members belonging to the council.   

Cllr Horne proposed and Cllr Evans seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Cllr Horne explained how a recent newspaper article had caused her distress by misreporting her remarks, even though she had since been given an apology.

RESOLVED – That this Council’s press and publicity officer takes to task misreporting by the press if this causes distress or is detrimental to the good name of the council, the officers or members belonging to the council.   

Voting was as follows:

For (31) – Richard Long, Venk Shenoi, Carole Allaway Martin, Jane Horne, Frankie Evans, David Easton, Grace Bensted, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Alastair Fraser, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Arthur Thomas, Dave East, Andrew Gardiner, Alan Preest, Heather Dalziel, Paul Hiett, David Thomson, Bruce Hogan, Max Coborn, Graham Morgan, Di Martin, Terry Hale, Terry Glastonbury, Denis Riley, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Peter Amos, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile

Against (1) – Sue Henchley,

Abstained (2) - Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry,

In circumstances where this Council holds funds on behalf of Community Projects until works take place; The Council will pay to the intended recipients at the appropriate time, the greater of the original sum deposited, or, the original sum deposited plus accumulated investment income on the funds for the period the funds are held.

Cllr Burford proposed and Cllr Stephens seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Speaking to his motion Cllr Burford explained that the content of this friendly motion could affect all members and wards and he hoped for cross party support. He explained that monies came into the council that were not part of tax income and that did not belong to the council, but to the eventual recipients. He cited £50,000 for Hartpury, granted for the construction of a play area as a Section 106 obligation five years ago. The answer to his question at 12.8 of the agenda confirmed that the money had been invested as part of council reserves with no management costs.

His was a simple motion proposing that any profit from monies held should be passed on to the eventual recipients, since it was theirs.

He congratulated the chairman of Hartpury Village Hall for enduring the meeting on 2 December and most of the meeting on 8 December, who was also present at this meeting. He ended by stating that income from investment on the original £50,000 was near £10,000, which represented a huge sum to such a small project. He was prepared to accept friendly amendments.

Cllr Lawton commented that the council was not a bank. He asked how much interest was expected. He also asked if in agreeing the motion the council would not be subject to possible scrutiny from a body such as the FSA, and what the council’s legal responsibility was in relation to granting more than any original obligation.

Cllr Burford replied that he had not mentioned interest, but investment income. There were figures available to confirm the amount accrued over the five years.

Cllr Robinson, as Cabinet Member for Efficient Council, accepted that this was a well-intentioned motion, but had concerns over the practicality of implementing it. He explained that the council held monies officially as the accountable body and was obliged to ensure that certain conditions be met before releasing monies. He gave the example of £2.6 million RDPE money for which the council was responsible to the European Union, which could inspect documents for ten years and reclaim monies if deemed inappropriately used.

Holding such monies carried risks for the council regarding giving monies inappropriately and losing money on investment, which had happened to other councils when Icelandic banks had failed. The council needed to account for these risks.

He had no problem in the council offering extra funds in individual cases to supplement projects, but to operate that as the norm would lead to additional risk. He repeated that while sympathetic, he saw practical difficulties with the motion in its current form.

Cllr Shenoi had sympathy with parish councils in similar positions, citing Huntley and also with Cllr Robinson’s views. He reminded members that in the current year there would be major changes to planning legislation intended to give more control at a very local level. He hoped that the ways in which allocations were managed would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

That this council write to the Prime Minister David Cameron MP requesting that full consideration be given to re-allocating one of the existing national public holidays to 11 November each year thus serving to create a true proper and fitting memorial on the most appropriate day to those who have given and continue to give the ultimate sacrifice the day would provide the opportunity for people to participate in acts of remembrance and reconciliation.

Cllr Preest proposed and Cllr Edey seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Cllr Preest stated that since the Great War 11 November at 11am had been acknowledged as the time to commemorate all service personnel killed or injured in armed conflict. Since that time there had been many conflicts and people continued to be killed or wounded. Public concern had been growing recently and now was the appropriate time to designate 11 November as a national public holiday, a multi-faith opportunity for every person to remember.

As an ex-serviceman and being closely involved with the Royal British Legion, he was proud to propose the motion and asked for members’ support.

Cllr Hiett stated that the likely holiday to be reallocated would be May Day, which he held dear in nationally recognising workers. As an ex-serviceman he fully supported the idea of the motion and proposed a friendly amendment, which Cllr Preest was happy to accept.

To replace re-allocating one of the existing national public holidays to 11 November with establishing an additional public holiday on the 11 November.

Cllr Amos was pleased to support the motion, although he personally did not need a special day, since, as an ex-serviceman, he remembered every day the loss of many of his friends in conflicts.

Cllrs Easton, Lawton, Horne, Morgan, Quaile, Fraser, Riley and Edey also voiced their full support, giving examples of personal and family experience.

Cllr Allaway Martin agreed, giving her professional support as a mental health professional to a day where families can remember together.

Cllr Gardiner emphasised that the two minutes silence was no longer strictly observed by everyone and a public holiday based around the poppy appeal would help.

Cllr Stephens fully sympathised with the amendment, saying that he thought of the loss of life and injuries daily, but asked whether the country needed an additional public holiday.

Cllr Hogan argued that the country had fewer public holidays than others in Europe and that the public holiday would be a good way for families to share in remembrance and also do good things together. He saw no better use for a public holiday.

Cllr Robinson had much sympathy with all the sentiments expressed. He was just concerned that the day might simply turn into a holiday without remembering why it was one. He valued being with other people on 11 November, a normal working day, and stopping for two minutes, sometimes even taking the time to explain why to those who did not know. However he totally supported the motivation for the motion.

Cllr Hiett thanked members for their kind and decent words. He praised Cllr Preest for proposing the original motion and commented that 11 November was a day where all conflicts, some of which were never publicised, were remembered.

Summing up, Cllr Preest thanked members for their moving comments and commended his motion to the meeting.

RESOLVED - That this council write to the Prime Minister David Cameron MP requesting that full consideration be given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

The answers to all member questions appear under item 6 of the agenda, since they were originally asked before 2 December 2010.

Waste Treatment Gate Fees

Cabinet report E22 of 16 September Para 7.9 gives cost of windrow and IVC composting as approximately £10 and £25 per tonne respectively.

Tables showing waste collection options circulated in 2008 by the then Head of Environmental Services in connection with a cabinet paper gives £25/Te (cost to disposal authority for 7,900Te garden waste) and £45/Te (cost to disposal authority for 13,000Te kitchen and garden waste).

Following a request for clarification of the gate fees and as suggested by the council’s Waste Management Officer, enquiries with the county resulted in my receiving a copy of a WRAP report (July 2010) listing cost of alternative waste treatment options with the comment that county costs were broadly in line with the WRAP figures (median £24/Te for windrow and £45 for IVC).

Q1       could the Cabinet Member confirm the cost of treatment used in comparing value for money of the collection options given in Report E22?If this was not considered, why not?

Cabinet Member for the Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile, to respond  

Before tackling the detail of these questions I should like to make some general points. 

Firstly, I recognise that Councillor Shenoi has a great deal of knowledge in this matter and that he has strong views.  There are a number of areas in which we agree; in an ideal world collection and disposal would not be separated – but at present they are.  This Council is responsible for collection while the County, as Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), deals with disposal. I agree that we should look at reducing the overall cost of these functions – and that is precisely why we are part of the Joint Waste Programme.

Secondly, I agree that in an ideal world we might indeed keep food waste separate throughout collection and disposal – but we cannot afford that option at present.

Thirdly, the independent view of the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is that there is no simple answer when designing a collection system, and there is certainly no one size fits all solution. 

Fourthly – and most importantly – as a Council we were asked to decide on a best way forward that considered many issues including the constraints of budget, legal risk, topography, the environment, infrastructure, customer expectation and our reputation.  This is a difficult balancing act with no single right answer. We have had to focus heavily on affordability and it is to the credit of all members who took part in the process that we did in fact reach a decision.  Our focus now should be on implementing this decision.

Waste Treatment Gate Fees

Cabinet report E.22 of 16 September Paragraph 7.9 gives cost of windrow and IVC composting as approximately £10 and £25 per tonne respectively.

Tables showing waste collection options circulated in 2008 by the then Head of Environmental Services in connection with a cabinet paper gives £25/Te (cost to disposal authority for 7,900Te garden waste) and £45/Te (cost to disposal authority for 13,000Te kitchen and garden waste).

Following a request for clarification of the gate fees and as suggested by the council’s Waste Management Officer, enquiries with the county resulted in my receiving a copy of a WRAP report (July 2010) listing cost of alternative waste treatment options with the comment that county costs were broadly in line with the WRAP figures (median £24/Te for windrow and £45 for IVC).

I must stress that we are a Waste Collection Authority and not a Waste Disposal Authority (WDA). We cannot provide the detail of waste treatment gate fees as that is commercially sensitive information held by the County Council who will not release it, even to us. The figures we have used in relation to treatment/disposal in the quoted reports are therefore approximate and should be treated as such.

Question 1

Could the Cabinet Member confirm the cost of treatment used in comparing value for money of the collection options given in Report E.22?

‘The collection options appraisal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Landfill Diversion from Garden Waste Collection

Para 7.14 of Report E22 states that the council’s garden waste service diverts 8,400Te of material from landfill.

A 2005 Defra report states‘the total quantity of waste arising has risen from 29,056 tonnes in 2002/03 to 36,249 tonnes in 2004/05, equivalent to 25% over the two years. This increase could be due to the introduction of collection of garden waste that had not been previously collected.’

Q2a     could the Cabinet Member give an estimate of the additional tonnages that could be sent to landfill if the present garden waste collection was altered to a charged scheme with reduction in collection given in Para7.15 of Report E22, or discontinued?

Q2b     What is the rationale for assuming a collected tonnage of 8,900 Te garden waste for option 4b in the table in 5.4 (charged garden waste option) given the statement in Para 7.15?

Landfill Diversion from Garden Waste Collection

Paragraph 7.14 of Report E.22 states that the council’s garden waste service diverts 8,400Te of material from landfill.

A 2005 Defra report states ‘the total quantity of waste arising has risen from 29,056 tonnes in 2002/03 to 36,249 tonnes in 2004/05, equivalent to 25% over the two years. This increase could be due to the introduction of collection of garden waste that had not been previously collected.’

Question 2a

Could the Cabinet Member give an estimate of the additional tonnages that could be sent to landfill if the present garden waste collection was altered to a charged scheme with reduction in collection given in Paragraph 7.15 of Report E.22, or discontinued?

‘If the garden waste service was withdrawn or a charged service put in place it is highly likely that some garden waste would end up in the refuse stream, even though it is council policy not to collect refuse that contains garden waste. A precise figure is difficult to estimate and would depend greatly on the public response to our education campaign the way they dispose of the material e.g. dumping in woods, home composting, burning etc.

We have modelled the worst-case scenario of 2000te per annum of garden waste being put in residual waste if a chargeable service is introduced. However with all options the total tonnage of residual waste reduces because of the other changes to service.

These estimates will not affect the option appraisal costings as they only impact on treatment costs’.

Question 2b

What is the rationale for assuming a collected tonnage of 8,900 Te garden waste for option 4b in the table in 5.4 (charged garden waste option) given the statement in Paragraph 7.15?

‘The information in the question is incorrect. 

The modelled figures are as follows for Option 4b:

If a charge for garden waste is introduced then it is anticipated that

6600te of garden waste would be collected.

If no charge for garden waste is introduced then it is anticipated that 8900te of garden waste would be collected.

The rationale for 4b charged (garden) waste service is in paragraph 7.15 of Report E.22.  For the 4b (no charge) service we estimated that the tonnage would increase by 500te per annum, given the move to a weekly service.  500te is around 50% of the garden waste residents take to Oak Quarry.

These estimates are based on the experience of other authorities that have made a similar service change’.

Kitchen Waste Collection Potential

The figures from the Head of Environmental services referred to in Q1 above gives potential for collecting 4,500 Te weekly of kitchen wastes if collected on its own or a total tonnage of 13,000Te (8,500 garden + 4,500Te Kitchen) if combined.

Another draft paper from the same source gives the kitchen waste content as ‘Depending on participation, should divert between 4,000 and 6,000 tonnes of biodegradable waste from landfill’

Report E22 refers to a likely collection of 3,500Te (or 10% of total) Kitchen waste (Para 7.16) and 8,900Te of garden waste in all the options considered.

Q3a     could the Cabinet Member confirm the average kitchen waste content (%) of the residual waste sent to landfill at present and the projected tonnages expected to be collected against each of the options compared in Report E22; what is the projected kitchen waste (%) left in the residual to be collected fortnightly and landfilled against each option?

Q3b     what is the average food and garden waste collected (kg/household per week) in comparable (weekly combined kitchen and garden waste) collection schemes such as Cotswolds’and how does it compare with that proposed for the Forest of Dean?

Q3c     what is the likelihood of diverting 3,500 Te/year of Kitchen wastes from landfill as proposed? What is the basis of his assumptions?

Kitchen Waste Collection Potential

The figures from the Head of Environmental services referred to in Q1 above gives potential for collecting 4,500 Te weekly of kitchen wastes if collected on its own or a total tonnage of 13,000Te (8,500 garden + 4,500Te Kitchen) if combined. Another draft paper from the same source gives the kitchen waste content as ‘Depending on participation, should divert between 4,000 and 6,000 tonnes of biodegradable waste from landfill’ Report E.22 refers to a likely collection of 3,500Te (or 10% of total) Kitchen waste (Para 7.16) and 8,900Te of garden waste in all the options considered.

Question 3a

Could the Cabinet Member confirm the average kitchen waste content (%) of the residual waste sent to landfill at present

‘Report E.22 does not say that 8,900te of garden waste would be collected for all options considered. In October 2008, Gloucestershire County Council commissioned a Household Waste Composition study in the Forest of Dean District. The results showed that 26.6% of residual waste arisings sent to landfill were organic catering; this amounted to approximately 5430te’.

The projected tonnages expected to be collected against each of the options compared in Report E.22;

‘3,500 tonnes, as set out in Report E.22, Paragraph 7.6 and as quoted by Councillor Shenoi.

What is the projected kitchen waste (%) left in the residual to be collected fortnightly and landfilled against each option?

‘We estimate that there will be approx 35% (an estimated 1930te) of organic catering left in the residual waste and therefore going to landfill.  However, this may well change depending on the success of our educational campaign and as participation levels increase’.

Question 3b

What is the average food and garden waste collected (kg/household per week) in comparable (weekly combined kitchen and garden waste) collection schemes such as Cotswolds’ and how does it compare with that proposed for the Forest of Dean?

The  ‘The County Council has been monitoring the progress of councils within Gloucestershire and their experience of the Cotswolds, Gloucester (year to date) and Tewkesbury (year to date) is that all 3 food waste collection schemes are very close to, or exceeding the performance figures estimated in our own modelling.  The County Council has stated that in view of the other councils’ performance it is reasonable to use the figures in the Forest of Dean forecasting models’.

Question 3c

What is the likelihood of diverting 3,500 Te/year of kitchen wastes from landfill as proposed? What is the basis of his assumptions?

‘Good. See 3b above’

Cost Comparisons of Kitchen Waste collections

Q4a     what is the annual projected cost of collection and IVC and/or windrow composting as appropriate for each of the proposed garden and kitchen waste collection options considered and what are the savings in landfill charges (tax + gate fee)  against each of the options?

Q4b     would it be better value for money for the Forest of Dean tax-payer not to collect food wastes as proposed in any option given the high cost of collection and treatment against the corresponding environmental benefits and relatively low savings in landfill charges and tax?

Cost Comparisons of Kitchen Waste collections

Question 4a

What is the annual projected cost of collection and IVC and/or windrow composting as appropriate for each of the proposed garden and kitchen waste collection options considered and what are the savings in landfill charges (tax + gate fee) against each of the options?

‘The cost of collection is given in report E.22 Annex B. The cost of disposal/treatment is information held and dealt with by the County Council’.

Question 4b

Would it be better value for money for the Forest of Dean tax-payer not to collect food wastes as proposed in any option given the high cost of collection and treatment against the corresponding environmental benefits and relatively low savings in landfill charges and tax?

‘No’.

Scrutiny Review of Report E22 prior to Cabinet Meeting

Could the Leader of the Council respond to the following:

Q5a     apart from providing comfort to cabinet, is it appropriate for scrutiny to review cabinet reports prior to consideration by cabinet? What do such cursory examinations achieve?

Q5b     do scrutiny committee members have the competence to consider the complex technical and financial issues inherent in such reports within the short time available at their meetings?

Q5c     does a pre-cabinet scrutiny review amount to pre-determination and sterilise scrutiny from conducting meaningful examination at a future call-in of the related cabinet decision?

Scrutiny Review of Report E22 prior to Cabinet Meeting

Could the Scrutiny Chairman respond to the following:-

Question 5a

Apart from providing comfort to cabinet, is it appropriate for scrutiny to review cabinet reports prior to consideration by cabinet? What do such cursory examinations achieve?

Scrutiny Chairmen to respond

‘Yes, the scrutiny committees have a valuable role to play in acting as a critical friend to the Cabinet.  Early consideration of cabinet reports can allow for better decision-making’.

Question 5b

Do scrutiny committee members have the competence to consider the complex technical and financial issues inherent in such reports within the short time available at their meetings?

‘Yes, the scrutiny committees can also call in officers and external advisors as required.  They can and do commission in-depth reviews from time to time’.

Question 5c

Does a pre-cabinet scrutiny review amount to pre-determination and sterilise scrutiny from conducting meaningful examination at a future call-in of the related cabinet decision?

‘No’.  

This question has been withdrawn.

This question was withdrawn.

Now that the GO7, now GO5 project has proceeded to complete signed contracts and legal formalities, what is the financial position?  The £20,000 was already committed from the £242,000, how much more has been spent since?

What is the estimated figure for the year end?  and what will be the estimated figure when the system goes live next October ?

Now that the GO7, now GO5 project has proceeded to complete signed contracts and legal formalities, what is the financial position? 

The £20,000 was already committed from the £242,000, how much more has been spent since? What is the estimated figure for the year-end?  And what will be the estimated figure when the system goes live next October?

Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Finance, Councillor Brian Robinson to respond

The revised business case approved by Cabinet in September 2010 showed a revised total investment of £367,729. 

Contracts have just been signed with the preferred supplier to commence the implementation phase and to date no further payments have been made.  It is anticipated that by March 2011 capital costs of £300,123 will have been incurred, and that by October 2011, our anticipated go-live date, total capital investment will be £346,479 and revenue investment will be £21,250.

Cllr Birch was not present at the meeting to ask a supplementary question.

This Council holds monies secured under planning agreements with developers for Community Projects, highways improvements, Schools, Library’s etc, until such time as they are needed for the works.

How does the Council invest these funds?

For each of the last five years, and currently, what is the total value of these sums held?

What return on the investment of these funds has been achieved over the last five years, and currently?

This Council holds monies secured under planning agreements with developers for Community Projects, highways improvements, schools, libraries etc, until such time as they are needed for the works.

How does the Council invest these funds? For each of the last five years, and currently, what is the total value of these sums held?

What return on the investment of these funds has been achieved over the last five years, and currently?

Cabinet Member for Efficient Council and Finance, Councillor Brian Robinson to respond

Monies received from developers under Section 106 Agreements are invested, along with all other surplus cash, in accordance the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy, which is approved by Council each year.  The monies are not separately invested.

The total amounts held under Section 106 Agreements at 31 March each year for the last five years and at 31 October 2010 are shown below:

31 October 2010            £458,061

31 March 2010            £137,787

31 March 2009            £273,180

31 March 2008            £350,029

31 March 2007            £180,122

31 March 2006              £105,879

The average rate of return on the Council’s total investments over the last five years and currently is shown below:

30 September 2010               1.22%

31 March 2010               2.80%

31 March 2009               5.98%

31 March 2008               5.62%

31 March 2007               4.85%

31 March 2006              4.87%

Cllr Burford did not need to ask a supplementary question.

The Leader of the Council and the chairmen of the scrutiny committees 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 Peter Amos

b)     Community Scrutiny and Review Committee – Councillor Terry Hale

c)      Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committee – Councillor Len Lawton

d)     Dean Heritage Centre – Report requested by Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committee

7a Cabinet report

Cllr Amos presented the report and invited questions. There were none.

7b Community Scrutiny and Review Committee

Cllr Hale presented the report and invited questions.

Cllr Martin asked if the council would circulate further information regarding Supporting People as it became known. (item 5 of the report)

Upon invitation Cllr Riley, Cabinet Member for Community, replied that there would be a meeting shortly. He was aware of the questions raised by Cllr Martin, which would be addressed and published in due course.

7c Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committee

Cllr Lawton presented the report and invited questions.

Cllr Lawton confirmed for Cllr Hogan that the CIC report (item 1 of the report) would be presented at the next committee meeting on 13 January 2011.

7d Dean Heritage Centre report

Cllr Lawton presented the report and invited questions.

Cllr Burford referred members to the amount of money the council had granted to the Dean Heritage Centre over the past five years. (agenda page 4)

Cllr Amos explained that cabinet members would listen and only give factual answers at the meeting, since the Cabinet would be considering the funding of the Dean Heritage Centre at its next meeting.

Cllr Shenoi believed that after funding from the council and National Lottery stretching back eight years, the Dean Heritage Centre had an endemic, systemic problem. He asked if the council would exercise sufficient controls and what assurance it would expect on outcomes for any funding.

Upon invitation Cllr Molyneux, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Housing, replied that the Cabinet had not yet deliberated and so could not give the specific stipulations it might impose on any grant. However the council would impose conditions relating to a business plan, targets and timescales.

Cllr Amos, Council Leader, added that the Cabinet insisted that any funding bid be supported by a sound business case that showed benefits to the community. As with all issues the Cabinet would need to become aware of unintended consequences, so needed to fully understand the issue.

Cllr Fraser asked why the council had no trustee representation.

Cllr Martin clarified that councillors appointed to outside bodies were observers. As trustees they would represent the trust.

Cllr Preest asked how many tourism providers the council supported and how members could justify to other providers why the Dean Heritage Centre had been given special treatment.

Cllr Molyneux replied that providers were given different levels of support, citing the tourism forum hosted by the Council earlier in the day and the production of the guide. The Dean Heritage Centre was given more support because it included educational and museum elements, and the council was also tied in to buildings.

Cllr Bensted asked if the district did not need a unique representation of its history and life such as the Dean Heritage Centre could give.

Cllr Lawton, answering personally, said that he recognised that need.

Cllr Edey asked if it were not time for the Council to let the Dean Heritage Centre stand on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Thursday 24 February 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 24 February 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm