To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Clive Brain, Nikki Goodlad, Des Saunders and Venk Shenoi.

To confirm the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 28 October 2010.

The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 28 October 2010 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

Councillor Norman Stephens requested clarification on the outcome of a motion from Councillor Max Coborn, recorded on page 8 of the minutes. Councillor Stephens reminded members that, following an amendment to the motion, (proposed by Councillor Stephens, seconded by Councillor Len Lawton), the council had resolved to forward a letter to the local Member of Parliament notifying him of the council’s views. Councillor Stephens enquired whether a letter had been sent to the MP and was informed that a letter would be issued the following week.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

There were no items of urgent business at this meeting.

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

Conscious of concerns from members of the Development Control Committee, regarding the process of declaring an interest in item 11.10 of the agenda, Councillor Alan Preest, gave early notification of his intention to withdraw his motion, regarding proposals to erect an industrial scale wind turbine. Councillor Preest confirmed that discussions had been held with the Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter Amos, who had given assurances that a time-limited working group would be established to consider the council’s planning policies on renewable energy and that he had been invited to participate in the activities of the group.

The following declarations were then noted and recorded: -

As elected members of Gloucestershire County Council, Councillors Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Graham Morgan, Martin Quaile and Brian Robinson, each declared a personal interest in item 11.8 of the agenda, regarding the intended closure of selected libraries within the Forest of Dean.

Following legal advice from the Solicitor to the Council, Councillor Martin Quaile, also declared an interest in item 13 of the agenda, with regard to information included in the Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committee Report concerning the Dean Heritage Museum. Councillor Quaile declared a prejudicial interest in the report as a Trustee of the Museum. Councillor Quaile informed members that he would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Councillor Alan Preest declared an interest in item 7 of the agenda, in response to the formal delivery of a petition opposing the erection of wind turbines on land at Horage Farm, Lydney. Councillor Preest declared a personal interest in this item due to his involvement with Lydney Area in Partnership (LAIP).

Councillor David Thomson declared a personal interest in item 13 of the agenda, with regard to information included in the Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committee Report concerning the Dean Heritage Museum. In his capacity as the council’s representative for the museum, Councillor Thomson was advised that he would be able to speak and vote on matters relating to this item.

Chairman of the Council, Councillor Marrilyn Smart OBE, welcomed everyone to the meeting. Conscious of the adverse weather conditions and the need to ensure the safety of everyone leaving the meeting that evening, the Chairman announced her intention to monitor the situation and possibly take a vote on adjourning the meeting later in the proceedings.  It was suggested that, should the business not be completed at this meeting, any outstanding items would be considered at a reconvened meeting at 6 pm on Wednesday 8 December 2010.

The Chairman made the following announcements: -

The Chairman to thank everyone involved for their efforts in organising the charity dinner at Forest Hills Golf Club on Friday 26 November 2010.

The Chairman thanked the members and officers who had supported the Charity Dinner and Awards Evening at the Forest Hills Golf Club on Friday 26 November 2010. The Chairman made specific reference to the people who had assisted in organising the event, particularly Karen Williams and her team, for the time and effort involved in ensuring the dinner was such a successful and enjoyable evening.

The Chairman also thanked those members who had attended the Citizens Remembrance Day Commemorations in Lydney on 11 November 2010. The Chairman said that, having representatives of 1 Rifles at the event and a bugler present, had made the day even more special and that she had written a letter of thanks to Commanding Officer, Colonel James de Labilliere.

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, 29 November 2010)

The following questions were presented at the meeting: -

Question 1 – Dr Daphne Pearson (Dean Heritage Museum)

Could you please advise how much funding from the District Council, the Dean Heritage Museum has received in the past 5 years in capital grants and revenue and including consultants’ fees for reports? 

Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Finance responded to the question: -

Dr Pearson submitted the following supplementary question at the meeting: -

Was any part of the capital grant from the Council subject to confirmation by match funding, and if so, was the match funding application successful?

Response from Councillor Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Finance: -

‘The council’s original capital grant offer was to match lottery heritage funding but this was not received. The part of the grant the council is currently holding has not been paid and is in abeyance for that reason’.

Question 2 – Mr Walter Williams (Core Strategy)

Bearing in mind that both the new Core Strategy, as well as the outgoing Local Plan, both put an emphasis on protecting the Forest of Dean environment, and that both put an emphasis on the need to develop tourism as a valuable source of income which needs to be further nurtured for the future of the District as a whole; accepting that our visitors and tourists come to see and appreciate the natural environment and landscape; bearing in mind that the Core Strategy document is in its final stages of formation; then, does not the Council agree that the undefined but important policy of renewable energy generation required serious consideration before precedents are set, beginning with public consultation on the various types of energy generation which are appropriate and which we want to encourage in the Forest and possibly creating policy which protects our natural landscape by focusing on passive and unobtrusive systems such as solar, bio-mass and methane exploitation, while preventing highly visible, unnatural, man made structures such as large wind turbines and even wind farms?

Councillor Patrick Molyneux, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, responded to the question: -

‘This question relates to the consideration of a renewable energy policy in the Core Strategy, and to the possible development of a policy that protects the landscape from the more “intrusive” forms of development.

The Core Strategy is written in such a way as to encourage a more sustainable pattern of development throughout the district. Its policies are intended to do this by guiding the location and nature of development and requiring new development to be more energy efficient, providing on site renewables. It does not contain policies directed to particular types of development but concentrates on themes such as protection of recreation and amenity land, design, housing provision, settlement strategy etc. The policies provide the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive a petition relating to the significant opposition of the surrounding community to the erection of large commercial scale wind turbines on Horage Farm or any other site adjacent to Neds Top, Oldcroft, Yorkley, Driffield Road and North Lydney, and

the development of planning policy in relation to large wind turbines near dwellings.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter Amos, formally accepted a petition from Jane Turley, regarding local opposition to the erection of large commercial scale wind turbines on land at Horage Farm, Lydney or on any other site adjacent to Neds Top, Oldcroft, Yorkley, Driffield Road and North Lydney. The petition also denoted local opposition to the development of planning policy in relation to large wind turbines in proximity to nearby dwellings.

Report LD.296 relating to the governance arrangements for the Council.  

The Council needs to select a new form of governance for its executive arrangements to be implemented after the next election in May 2011.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter Amos, presented report LD.296 and informed members that the council had a statutory requirement to select a new form of governance for its executive arrangements before the end of December. The Leader said that, in compliance with recent government legislation, the council had undertaken a public consultation exercise on the proposed arrangements, (which had later been considered by the Constitution Working Group), before approval at the Cabinet meeting on 18 November 2010. The Leader confirmed that the new arrangements would be implemented immediately following the District Council Election in May 2011, regardless of any organisational changes that might be introduced on publication of the impending Draft Localism Bill later in the month. Responding to concerns from Councillor Keith Aburrow, Councillor Amos reminded members that the decision was a statutory requirement and that until such time that the Coalition Government chose to introduce proposals to consider returning to a committee style of governance, the council had no alternative other than to comply with the arrangement. Councillor Amos referred to the recommendations on pages 21 and 22 of the agenda before council,

RESOLVED: -

1)     To note the report and the results of the consultation with the public, interested parties; the Constitution Working Group and Cabinet,

2)     That the Council’s governance arrangements should be the new style Leader and Cabinet Executive, (England), with effect from the third day after the District Council elections on 5 May 2011;

3)     That the Council should have the power to remove the Leader by way of resolution by a simple majority;

4)     To request that the Group Manager, (Legal, Democratic Services and Human Resources), publish the statutory notice as set out at Annex A of the report in a newspaper and circulate in the area in accordance with Section 29(2) of the Local Government Act;

5)     To note that the necessary amendments to the Constitution of the Council had been considered by the Constitution Working Group and reported later in the meeting;

6)     To request a further report back to Cabinet and Full Council, once the details of the new legislation on future decision-making structures had been made known.

The voting was as follows: -

For (37)

Councillors, Keith Aburrow, Carole Allaway Martin, Peter Amos, Georgina Bensted, Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Derek Biddle, Roy Birch, Max Coborn, Heather Dalziel, Dennis Dormer, David Easton, Peter Ede, Diana Edwards, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Sue Henchley, Paul Hiett, Bruce Hogan, Jane Horne, Len Lawton, Dr Richard Long, Di Martin, Mike Meredith Edwards, Patrick Molyneux, Graham Morgan, Martin Quaile, Denis Riley, Brian Robinson, Marrilyn Smart OBE, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson, Marion Winship and Roger Yeates.

Against (1)

Councillor Maria Edey

Abstentions (5)

Councillors Philip Burford, Dave East, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Alan Preest and Norman Stephens.

No Vote (1)

Councillor Andrew Gardiner

To consider report LD.298 relating to revisions to the constitution from the Constitution Working Group.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter Amos, presented report LD.298 and informed members that, subject to the council’s previous decision to introduce a new style Leader and Cabinet executive arrangement, it was necessary to amend the council’s constitution. Councillor Amos advised the meeting that, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, (and subject to the recommendation being moved and seconded at this meeting), recommendation (1) on page 30 of the agenda, would stand deferred until a formal decision was made at the next ordinary meeting of Full Council on 24 February 2011. Whilst confirming this position, Solicitor to the Council, Marie Rosenthal, also said that, due to operational implications and the need to keep the council’s contract procedure rules up to date, members were advised to agree recommendations (2) to (6) of the report at this meeting, subject to the majority of members agreeing to suspend Article 12, of Part IV of the Rules of Procedure. Councillor Bruce Hogan proposed that members suspend Article 12, Part IV of the Rules of Procedure and Councillor Di Martin seconded the proposal. Following a show of hands, this was agreed.

Responding to a question from Councillor Philip Burford, regarding the feasibility of introducing audio recordings at other committee meetings, Solicitor to the Council, Marie Rosenthal, said that she would need to investigate the technical logistics of the proposal before presenting for consideration at a future meeting. Action by – Solicitor to the Council, Marie Rosenthal

Councillor Amos moved the recommendations, subject to an amendment to the ‘Officer Scheme of Delegation, allowing for minor property transactions to be approved by officers, with the exception of freehold disposals’. Councillor Patrick Molyneux seconded this proposal and members,

RESOLVED: -

1)     To defer council’s approval of recommendation (1) until the next ordinary meeting of Full Council on 24 February 2011.              

2)     To update the Contract Procedure Rules as detailed in Annex A

3)     To review the membership of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee to reflect current Trade Union membership.

4)     To amend the Officer Scheme of Delegation to allow for minor property transactions to be approved by officers, with the exception of freehold disposals.

5)     To authorise the Democratic Services Manager to arrange for the audio recordings of council meetings to be made available to the public via the councils’ website and,

6)     To amend paragraph D20 of Part IV Rules of Procedure of the Constitution to allow for Full Council and Development Control Committee meetings to be audio recorded and broadcast via the council’s website.

The voting was as follows: -

For (42)

Councillors Keith Aburrow, Carole Allaway Martin, Peter Amos, Georgina Bensted, Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Derek Biddle, Roy Birch, Philip Burford, Max Coborn, Heather Dalziel, Dennis Dormer, Dave East, David Easton, Peter Ede, Maria Edey, Diana Edwards, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Sue Henchley, Paul Hiett, Bruce Hogan, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Len Lawton, Dr Richard Long, Di Martin, Patrick Molyneux, Graham Morgan, Alan Preest, Martin Quaile, Denis Riley, Brian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report E.27 relating to the adoption of the Licensing Policy for the period 20011-2014

Councillor Jane Horne presented report E.27 and apologised to members that some of the pages of the Draft Licensing Policy at Annex A of the report had not been printed. Councillor Horne referred members to the replacement copy that had been circulated at the meeting and confirmed that the Licensing Committee had considered the draft document before referring to Full Council for approval. Councillor Jane Horne moved the recommendation and Councillor Martin Quaile seconded the motion. Members noted the report and,

RESOLVED to adopt the Licensing Policy at Annex A for the period 2011 to 2014

The voting was as follows: -

For (44)

Councillors Keith Aburrow, Carole Allaway Martin, Peter Amos, Georgina Bensted, Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Derek Biddle, Roy Birch, Philip Burford, Max Coborn, Heather Dalziel, Dennis Dormer, Dave East, David Easton, Peter Ede, Maria Edey, Diana Edwards, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Andrew Gardiner, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Sue Henchley, Paul Hiett, Bruce Hogan, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Len Lawton, Dr Richard Long, Di Martin, Mike Meredith Edwards, Patrick Molyneux, Graham Morgan, Alan Preest, Martin Quaile, Denis Riley, Brian Robinson, Marrilyn Smart OBE, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson, Marion Winship and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

The Chairman invited each representative councillor to present the following motions: -

This council resolves to reinstate the “ring fenced” budget for the refurbishment of Heywood Sports Centre and to commence work at the earliest opportunity to bring facilities at Heywood to the same standard as those at the other centres in our district.

NB: This motion was deferred from the Full Council meeting on 30 September 2010.

The following motion was deferred at the Full Council meeting on 30 September 2010.

This council resolves to reinstate the “ring fenced” budget for the refurbishment of Heywood Sports Centre and to commence work at the earliest opportunity to bring facilities at Heywood to the same standard as those at the other centres in our district.

Councillor Max Coborn informed the meeting that he would withdraw his motion on the understanding that the relevant Group Manager maintained active discussions with the governing body of Heywood School to achieve the guarantees required to safeguard the council’s investment. Furthermore, he would withdraw his motion on the understanding that the money remained ‘ring-fenced’ for this purpose. As the person responsible for seconding the motion at the council meeting in September, Councillor Di Martin confirmed that she supported Councillor Coborn’s decision to withdraw the motion.

Chairman, Councillor Marrilyn Smart, accepted the decision to withdraw the motion from the meeting and informed members that, following discussions with the council’s Monitoring Officer, Marie Rosenthal, Councillor Coborn reserved the right to submit his motion for consideration at a future meeting without being governed by the council’s six month rule.

In the interests of economy and the current economic climate this council no longer supplies refreshments for members at any council meetings or training events.

At the meeting on 2 December 2010, Councillor Andrew Gardiner agreed to defer consideration of the following motion until later in the meeting. The item was later deferred for consideration at the reconvened meeting on 8 December 2010.

In the interests of economy and the current economic climate, this council no longer supplies refreshments for members at any council meetings or training events.

This council is very concerned by the Government's stated intention of selling off up to 50 per cent of publicly owned forest land, currently run by Forest Enterprise, which is likely to lead to greater commercial exploitation and possibly reduced access.

In view of this

1)     This Council will write to both DEFRA and the Secretary of State for the Environment expressing our grave concern at the proposed sale and asking for assurances that a full and complete public consultation will take place within this District and be heeded.

2)     This Council will support and defend the historic rights of the public within the Statutory Forest.

Furthermore, this council will take every possible action to prevent the sale of any publicly owned forestry land in the Forest of Dean.

In introducing the motion, Councillor Marion Winship proposed an amendment to the printed motion on the agenda and Councillor Philip Burford seconded the amended motion. Councillor Winship read out the amended motion and proposed that: -

‘This council is very concerned by the Government’s stated intention of selling off up to 50 per cent of publicly owned forest land, currently run by Forest Enterprise, which is likely to lead to greater commercial exploitation and possibly reduced access. In view of this,

1)     This Council will write to both DEFRA and the Secretary of State for the Environment expressing our grave concern at the proposed sale and asking for assurances that a full and complete public consultation will take place within this District and be heeded before the Public Bodies Bill is introduced in the House of Commons.

2)     This council will support and defend the historic rights, traditions and privileges of the public within the Forest of Dean.

3)     Furthermore, this council will take every possible action to prevent the privatisation of any publicly owned forestry land in the Forest of Dean’.

Councillor Winship addressed the meeting and made the following statement in support of the amended motion: 

“As we all know, the Forest of Dean is a unique and important ancient forest with a history that has given rise to a rich culture and traditions – it is key to the attractiveness of this area, deeply loved by the people who live here and valued as an asset throughout the whole country.The Public Bodies Bill, currently before Parliament, would confer the power on ministers to abolish or amend existing legislation on a large number of bodies, including the Forestry Commission.  An order made by a minister in this way is not subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny; the order comes before Parliament for approval but amendments are not possible.  That is why it is essential that consultation with the public must take place before this Bill comes before Parliament.  Once it is in place, it will be too late. We are told that public access would be protected, but the Forest of Dean is not protected by legal rights and accesses that may apply elsewhere. As Lord McNair said during the debate on the 1981 Forestry Bill, “the people of the Forest of Dean would be uniquely disadvantaged, because for various historical reasons they have no legal rights of common or of access. Instead they have customary privileges, which are fully recognised by the Forestry Commission, and it is difficult to see how these de facto privileges could possibly be safeguarded if any part of the Forest of Dean were to pass into private hands.” The Forestry Commission has allowed access to the public, locals and tourists alike, with forest trails, picnic places, a cycle route and camping grounds which have encouraged the increase of tourism in this area and contributed much to its economy. But these privileges have no legal status and would be difficult to enforce. Even if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.3

To avoid repeated attempts to Privatise the Royal Forest of Dean  this council should do everything in its power to consolidate and enhance the exemptions from sale pertaining to the Statutory Forest of Dean and the protected contiguous woodlands (of Highmeadow, Clearwell and Hope).  Furthermore because an enabling bill would empower ministers to act unilaterally and remove effective parliamentary scrutiny ,  this council,  should seek enhanced protective designations along the existing Forestry Commission model and administration.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

This council believes that the publicly owned woodlands currently managed by the Forestry Commission are a precious national asset. This council views with alarm proposals in the Public Bodies Bill to transfer ownership of our woodlands from the Government to others and the removal of the stewardship of the Forestry Commission.

Furthermore, to do this by way of an enabling bill which will empower ministers to act unilaterally and remove effective parliamentary scrutiny is, in the view of this council, fundamentally undemocratic.

This council aligns itself with the local campaign to prevent the sale or transfer of ownership of the Forest of Dean, (Hands Off Our Forest), and invites our Member of Parliament to a meeting with all elected members so that our views can be heard.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

That this council does everything in its power to resist any sell off or encroachments of any part of our Forest ‘The Forest of Dean’.

Councillor Jane Horne withdrew this item at the adjourned meeting on 2 December 2010.

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.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

This council views with alarm the intention of Gloucestershire County Council to close libraries in Cinderford, Mitcheldean Newnham and Bream and to greatly reduce the provision in Lydney.

Cinderford, in particular, has been identified as an area of lower educational attainment and with relatively high levels of deprivation.

This Council recognises the imperative of making local authority services as accessible as possible. With the increasing tendency for councils to make services only accessible on line (e.g. Gloucestershire Homeseeker), the provision of public internet access, with back up for those without I.T. skills are vital.

The closure of our One-Stop –Shops and now the impending closure of some of our libraries will leave whole communities without publicly available internet access.

This council urges Gloucestershire County Council to rethink its library closure programme to focus provision on communities with the greatest need and to ensure that no community is disempowered by the removal of public internet access.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

That this Council record the significant opposition of the surrounding community to the proposal to erect an industrial scale wind turbine (s) on a site in close proximity to homes at Homage Farm, Lydney and and the Leader of Council to write to Lydney Area in Partnership (L.A.I.P) requesting that they recognise this opposition to their proposal and seeks confirmation that L.A.I.P. has concluded that the Horage Farm site is not a suitable location for a wind farm.

That this council further requests that L.A.I.P. undertakes full public consultation in considering any alternative proposal.

That this council develops appropriate planning policy guidance which protects areas of high landscape and amenity value and includes minimum distance criteria between wind turbines and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings, public rights of way and roads.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 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?

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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?

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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?

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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?

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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?

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

Why has the decision been taken not to produce diary inserts for elected members for 2011? Elected members will hold office until May 2011 and the council could have issued pages for the first five months of the year.

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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 ?

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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 item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

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 – Councillor Len Lawton

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

This item was deferred at the meeting on 2 December 2010 and considered at the meeting on 8 December 2010.

Thursday 24 February 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 24 February 2011 at 7pm (Budget and Council Tax)

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm