To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Derek Biddle and Peter Ede.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2010 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2010 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 and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Cllr Smart declared a personal interest in item 6.1 as a member of the Social Enterprise Board.

Cllr Grace Bensted declared a personal interest in item 6.1 having attended meetings of the Social Enterprise Board.

To consider questions from members of the public in accordance with the published protocol. To submit a question contact Democratic Services on 01594 812625 or email democratic.services@fdean.gov.uk. All questions must be submitted in writing at least two working days prior to the meeting.

Question 1 from Dr Daphne Pearson, Redbrook

Re: Planning appeal

Could the committee please ascertain the total cost to the Council, including officer hours involved, of losing the appeal over the aviary in Newent?

Response from Peter Williams, Group Manager for Planning and Housing

I would like to thank Dr Pearson for her question. This matter relates to a decision of the Development Control Committee on 11 May 2010. We calculate that the Council's cost to defend the decision at appeal, including officer time and travelling, total approximately £700. The council will also have to pay the appeal costs of the applicant. We estimate those to be in the order of £3 - 4000.

There was no supplementary question.

To consider report A.99 relating to the council’s loan to the community interest company.

Ian Baker, South West Audit Partnership (SWAP), presented report A.99, outlining the approach used for the audit and highlighting key findings. The review had looked at key dates in the timeline, interviewed key people and examined the two council files. In SWAP’s view there was no criminal case to answer.  It was pertinent that in his opinion council officers or members had acted following due process and in good faith. It was worth noting that the SWAP report fully endorsed the recommendations of the Solicitor’s original report to the committee. He said that in the Findings section of the report it was important that the Social Enterprise Board (SEB) had regarded the Social Enterprise Initiative Funding (SEIF) submission totally separately from the grant application to the council. The two had only become linked because of loan conditions imposed by the council. He drew attention to paragraph 1.9, regarding the council’s actions after it was known that the SEF bid had failed.

Cllr Thomson commented that if had been his personal money lent to a trusted friend or relative, he would be feeling aggrieved that he had not been given all the facts.

Cllr Burford thanked SWAP for its report, which detailed the facts accurately. However he had hoped that the audit would uncover information that was not in the files, by challenging individual recollections. He believed that the council would have gone in a different direction if it had seen the letter fro the PCT, declining support. He was disappointed that the report did not contain answers to important questions, such as why the chairman of the SEB had not mentioned at the Community Scrutiny and Review Committee meeting on 16 October 2008 the letter from SEIF rejecting its bid. He believed that the council had examined the issue to the point where it could go no further and hoped that it had learned the lessons it clearly needed to.

Ian Baker, in response, expressed regret if members felt that the committee’s request had not been met fully. However he had been unable to make a conclusion regarding the PCT letter, as neither councillor present at the relevant board meeting could recall specific detail. The SEB chairman could have said in his defence that there had been a council representative at the meeting on 9 September when the letter was referred to. The former Chief Executive had made it clear that the Community Scrutiny and Review Committee’s role was to satisfy itself regarding financial statements. SWAP had also been unable to get an answer from SEIF regarding the council’s suitability as a body supporting any bid.

Cllr Burford stated that members had asked the SEB chairman on 16 October 2008 the likelihood of a successful SEIF bid and he had said that he was hopeful. If he had been optimistic of a successful appeal he should have told members that the original bid had been rejected.

Cllr Winship said that the Council knew that there was a possibility that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Cllr Thomson to present the final report, LD.297.

Cllr Thomson presented report LD.297, stating that members began the review with diverse views, but that the group had formulated unanimous recommendations. He had personally been in favour of running a council supplied locked down computer. However as the review progressed it became clear that the more functionality members wanted the more restrictive that option became. It became clear to all that it would be better for members to use their own equipment for their own requirements. The group recognised in several recommendations that new members and some existing members would have problems needing support.

The task group found that improvements were being made to member IT access as it was progressing, particularly with the Citrix Access Gateway and software.

The group had concluded that with enough support and training it would be best for members to use their own equipment. The allowance was sufficient to provide the equipment and a basic connection to the Internet to enable councillors to fulfil their role. If councillors wanted more for personal reasons, they could buy more themselves.

The task group was now looking for new members to be able to slip into the system a lot more easily than current members had been able to. He hoped that the Member Development Group would ensure that there was useful guidance for councillors as part of the new member handbook.

Cllr Lawton thanked the task group for its work, making particular mention of the contribution made by Cllr Gordon Taylor, Gloucester City Council.

Cllr Winship asked if it was correct that the more you pay for broadband the faster it worked. She suggested that the council should set an example in the case for faster speeds in the district by supplying fast broadband to all members.

Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Finance, informed members that the district was part of a pilot called BDUK to develop fast broadband in rural areas and that 75 per cent of the district would be covered. The county council had invested £300,000 into the project and the district would become one of the first rural areas in the country to benefit.

Cllr Burford said that previously the fast broadband he had paid for himself had worked well, apart from connection to the Council. However since the new Citrix Access Gateway had been installed, that too operated quickly.

He urged that the Independent Remuneration Panel be made aware of the report and its budget implications.

Cllr Thomson answered that he had done so that morning in an email to the Democratic Services Manager. Officers confirmed that the IRP would meet shortly.

RESOLVED -

a)     From May 2011, all elected members be required to provide their own IT equipment.

b)     A ‘pool’ of short-term loan equipment be made available to members elected in May 2011 who do not currently have any personal IT equipment.

c)      The IT department provide details of the minimum PC specification requirements and support members as required in their purchase of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

Cllr Winship to give an oral update on the group’s work.

Cllr Winship, task group chairman, gave an oral update. The task group had decided to put forward a model based on one overview and scrutiny committee with sub groups.

The group would meet to consider a report to be presented at an all-member event on 3 March to receive comments in readiness for a report to the Full Council meeting in April. She would present the final task group report to the committee on 17 March 2011. The new council would implement the model.

Cllr Thomson said that the proposal might avoid the conflicts between the current two committees' responsibilities.

Cllr Lawton thanked the task group for its work.

To consider items for discussion at future meetings, including relevant issues on the Cabinet forward plan.

The chairman informed members of a press release that publicised a possible invitation to Forest MP Mark Harper to a joint scrutiny meeting to explain the Public Bodies Bill and how it would affect the Forest of Dean. This recognised the importance of the issue to residents, who had contacted members.

Through the meeting it was hoped committee members, and members of the public who attend, would get the full details of the Public Bodies Bill.

The Head of Paid Service clarified that this invitation was totally separate from the one resolved at the Full Council meeting in December 2010.

Cllr Hogan asked for an assurance that if the MP was only able to attend one meeting, it should be that requested by Full Council. He suggested that if there were two meetings, the all-member meeting requested by Full Council should happen first.

Cllr Lawton confirmed that this would be an additional invitation.

Cllr Thomson hoped that the MP would be informed of both meetings at the same time.

RESOLVED – to invite Mark Harper MP to a joint scrutiny meeting to explain the Public Bodies Bill and how it will affect the Forest of Dean.

At its meeting on 12 December 2011 Full Council had passed the following resolution:

In circumstances where this Council holds S106 planning obligation 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. We recommend that the above issues be passed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee for investigation and its recommendation be passed to Full Council.

After discussion with the chairman of the Community Scrutiny and Review Committee, members agreed that the best date would be 3 February, when the joint committee was already meeting to discuss the second quarter performance report.

RESOLVED – to consider at the joint scrutiny meeting to be held on 3 February 2011 a report regarding planning s106 obligation funds, as at the Full Council resolution 12 January 2011.

To determine priorities within the work plan below, if appropriate. Grey shading indicates currently active task groups and reviews.

The committee agreed to deal with the resolution from full council regarding s106 funds as a priority

All at 6.00pm with a chairman’s briefing for members at 5.30pm

Members asked that all future scrutiny dates appear on the agendas and minutes of all three committees.