To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Roy Birch, Clive Brain, Dennis Dormer, Frankie Evans, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick and Des Saunders.

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

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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.

The following declarations of interest were made at the adjourned council meeting on 2 December 2010: -

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.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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)

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

This item was considered at the adjourned meeting on 2 December 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.

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

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 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 item was deferred from the adjourned meeting on 2 December 2010.

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

Cllr Gardiner said that he was disappointed at the loss of the council’s canteen, where he had often bought his own food. However he believed that the platters of sandwiches now provided were self indulgent and unnecessary.

Cllr Fraser supported the motion, Cllr Lawton also supported the motion, while recognising that the current system did not cost much and helped those coming to meetings straight from work and also the local business that supplied them.

Cllr Stephens proposed and Cllr Burford seconded the following amendment. That no refreshments be provided for any events in the council offices.

Cllrs Gardiner and Edey accepted the amendment.

The Head of Paid Service confirmed that currently no sandwiches were provided for general meetings, that those provided for outside bodies meetings were the exception and that all hospitality budgets had been removed. Answering a query from Cllr Martin she clarified that the subsistence allowance was in the terms and conditions for officers, but that the council decided to apply the allowance to members too.

Regarding officer subsistence allowances, Cllr Ede pointed out that many officers did not claim when they were entitled to.

There was brief discussion regarding subsistence for sites visits, which was agreed to be a separate issue.

Cllr Robinson sought clarity on exactly what would be stopped. He believed that it was important in humanising the council for members to discuss issues in an informal setting over a cup of coffee. He commented that at the county council refreshments were organised by members in a cross-party arrangement.

Cllr Long was concerned that in agreeing the motion, added to the proposed continuing freeze on allowances and reduction in mileage allowance, elected members would be invited to pay for anything.

To clarify his motion, Cllr Gardiner said that he saw no harm in offering beverages to visitors.

There was general agreement with Cllr Molyneux’s view that it was common courtesy to offer visitors a beverage and refreshment, particularly if they had travelled far and Cllr Robinson’s suggestion that details of how to arrange refreshments be looked at later.

Cllrs Stephens and Burford withdrew the amendment.

RESOLVED -

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.

.

Voting was as follows.

For (32) – Marrilyn Smart, Carol Allaway Martin, Keith Aburrow, Georgina Bensted, Grace Bensted, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Alastair Fraser, James Bevan, Marion Winship, Nikki Goodlad, Philip Burford, Arthur Thomas, Maria Edey, Andrew Gardiner, Heather Dalziel, Sue Henchley, Paul Hiett, David Thomson, Bruce Hogan, Lynn Sterry, Max Coborn, Graham Morgan, Di Martin, Terry Hale, Terry Glastonbury, Denis Riley, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Peter Amos, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile,

Against (2) – Venk Shenoi, Richard Long

Abstained (4) - David Easton, Norman Stephens, Dave East, Alan Preest

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.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 2 December 2010.

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 from the adjourned meeting on 2 December 2010.

Cllr Gardiner proposed and Cllr Stephens seconded the following motion, amended slightly from the one at the agenda:

To avoid attempts which could lead to Privatisation of the Royal Forest of Dean - this Council should do everything in its power to consolidate and enhance the exemption 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 to extend and consolidate the protective designation of the Forest, afforded by Section 39 (2A) of the Forestry Act 1967.

 Therefore this Council to;

1. Write to Mark Harper MP and Prime Minister David Cameron MP, and electronically copy; the Secretary of State, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon; Members of Parliament; Member of the House of Lords and all local authorities, requesting their urgent action and support to exempt the Royal Forest of Dean from Clause 17 of the Public Bodies Bill, and, 
2. For a deputation of Member’s representatives from All Groups and Officer/s and co-opted expert/s to visit and meet with those engaged in the Public Bodies Bill passing through the Lords and Commons, namely to include Lord Taylor and the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman before the Bill is introduced in the House of Commons.
3. For the Solicitor of the Council to coordinate matters included in bullet point 2 and the Head of Paid Services to co-ordinate matters included in bullet point 1.

Cllr Gardiner asked that councillors redeem themselves by showing unity to avoid the chaos of the previous week’s meeting. He pointed to the considerable debate in parliament relating to the 1981 bill. The rights and privileges had been earned in blood, sweat and toil by the people of the Forest of Dean. Councillors owed it to the electorate to preserve those rights.

Cllr Martin believed that the motion was straightforward and eloquent and hoped that it would be passed without the need for protracted debate.

Cllr Stephens agreed, adding that it was essential to act quickly, as there was no time to lose with the Christmas break looming.

Cllr Dalziel referred to an email she had sent all members containing links to Hansards and the strength of the 1981 amendment debate. The matter should not be party political.

Cllr Shenoi sympathised with members’ concerns, but asked what the motion would actually achieve. He suggested that planning policy was the most powerful weapon.

Cllr Morgan fully supported the views of the people of the district and believed that the motion was sincere.

In support Cllr East reminded members that they were there to be the voice of the people.

Cllr Amos said that he believed all councillors held dear the historical rights of the people of the district. He was satisfied with the action achieved by passing the motion at item 11.3 of the agenda. The council should now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.4

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 from the adjourned meeting on 2 December 2010.

Cllr Hogan proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the following motion, which had been altered in the light of debate at the previous week’s meeting.

This council believes that the publicly owned woodlands currently managed by the Forestry Commission are a precious national asset 

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 there can be a full and frank exchange of views.

Speaking to his motion Cllr Hogan pointed out that the council had aligned itself with and offered support in kind to the SOS campaign several years ago. He asked for finding a common cause through alignment to the properly constituted campaign, Hands Off Our Forest  (HOOF) that represented just about every organisation in the Forest.  The district’s MP was a key member of the government and the council needed to win him over to its cause through their campaign. He would take heed of at least one of the resolutions if more Conservative councillors voted with their conscience. The proposed meeting with the MP could be public or private and was simply designed to facilitate dialogue rather than a shouting match.

Responding to the motion, Cllr Amos reiterated that there was no whip on this matter from his group. He said that his group stood by the final paragraph of the motion resolved at the previous meeting under item 11.3 and said that he was happy to support Cllr Hogan’s motion. He proposed and Cllr Quaile seconded that the motion be put.

However Cllr Stephens proposed and Cllr Gardiner seconded the following friendly amendment, which Cllrs Hogan and Martin accepted.

Furthermore this council makes clear that in its stated opposition to privatisation of any publicly owned forest land in the Forest of Dean, privatisation means the transfer of the ownership of forest land to any body or organisation other than a public body under the control of a democratically elected government of the United Kingdom.

Cllr Amos withdrew his support for this amended motion.

Cllr Stephens explained that it only sought to add a little more weight to the motion resolved the previous week and could not think why any councillor would oppose it.

Cllr Lawton expressed his opposition to the amendment. He would be happy for the forest to be controlled by a local public body, since local people were entitled to that, but not necessarily a national body.

Cllr Winship was slightly confused by the amendment and whether local public bodies such as social enterprise companies were under the ultimate control of the government. It was important to support HOOF, to which many thousands of residents had signed up. Councillors had a duty to their electorates rather than their political masters.

Cllr Morgan supported the addendum because the people wanted the forest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.5

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 the following motion at the meeting on 2 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’.

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 to February meeting of Full Council.

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.

RESOLVED - To suspend Council procedure rule A1(d) at 5.00pm to allow the meeting to continue for up to 30 minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours.

This item was deferred at the adjourned meeting on 2 December 2010.

Cllr Martin proposed and Cllr Hogan seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Cllr Martin began by stating that every community needed a library. The library in Cinderford acted as a focal point for isolated residents in outlying areas. It was used for many different purposes by the old, the young, and the unemployed. Without it, the residents of Bream and Mitcheldean would have no facility nearby. She informed councillors that there would be a meeting called by Cinderford Town Council on Friday evening.

Cllr Easton supported the motion, saying it would be foolhardy to remove such a useful facility, particularly for children.

Cllr Dalziel had read with disbelief that Cinderford library might close. She had asked the Head of the Library Service at the county council if there was a similar report to the one used as evidence for a review ten years ago, detailing usage and distances between libraries. She had been told that it was eight miles from Cinderford to Coleford and drive times had been taken into consideration. She did not know of any children that drove vehicles. The time and cost to take a bus between the two towns were both great.

She had also been told that 43,797 visits had been made to the Cinderford library in 2010, representing a decline over five years, but still high. She was concerned at possible impacts on education and commented that the local economy might also lose out, as parents often combined visits to the library with shopping trips.

Cllr Quaile said that councillors should be talking up its areas rather than using statements such as ‘relatively high levels of deprivation’. He explained that there would be four groups of library service types, the fourth being possible community ownership to avoid closure. He cited Bream as an example where this concept had been considered even before the current proposals. He was not opposed to the motion, but said that there was no intention to close Cinderford library and the issue would be discussed at the county council the very next day.

Cllr Georgina Bensted said that she agreed with the sentiment of the motion, adding that the proposals had been open to consultation since 19 November, continuing till 11 February 2011. There would also be a number of drop-in sessions, the one in Coleford being on 12 January 2011 between 2 and 5pm. She urged the public to give its views.

Cllr Stephens agreed that it was important that the public attend the session. Residents in Newnham had expressed their concerns to him about the closure of Cinderford library.

Cllr Hiett supported the motion, commenting that the proposals represented a backward step for a forward thinking society. People in remote areas found it difficult to access the internet and connections were slow. He believed the driving force again was asset management, citing the situation of Westdean community centre.

Cllr Hogan stated that the motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.8

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.

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.

Councillor Alan Preest withdrew his motion at the meeting on 2 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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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 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?

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

Thursday 24 February 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm

Adjourned meeting – Date to be arranged

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

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm