To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

To confirm the minutes of the Full Council meeting held on 26 May 2011.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2011 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 on this occasion.

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 12.3 as a member of the Gloucestershire County Council Health, Community and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Sue Pangbourne, Head of Paid Service, declared a financial interest in item 7.

Peter Hibberd, Strategic Director, declared a financial interest in item 7.

Cllr Robinson declared a personal interest in items 11, 16.4 and 16.5, as a county councillor.

Cllr Quaile declared a personal interest in items 11, 16.4 and 16.5, as a county councillor.

Cllr Hale declared a personal interest in items 11, 16.4 and 16.5, as a county councillor.

Cllr Glastonbury declared a personal interest in items 11, 16.4 and 16.5, as a county councillor.

Cllr Coborn declared a personal interest in the motion regarding CCTV as a member of Cinderford Town Council.

Cllr Morgan declared a personal interest in the motion regarding CCTV as chairman of Cinderford Town Council.

Cllr Lawton declared a personal interest in the motion regarding CCTV as mayor of Newent Town Council.

Cllr Osborne declared a personal interest in the motion regarding CCTV as mayor of Lydney Town Council.

Cllr Bevan declared a personal interest in item 16.4 as a bus operator and shareholder in a bus company.

The chairman announced his charities for the year 2011/12.

The first would be Alzheimers, supporting such initiatives as the memory cafés in Cinderford and Newent and hoping to encourage more activities.

The second would be Forest Pulse, which supported children with disabilities and their families. Both were close to the chairman’s heart and his own family experience.

The chairman to invite members and officers of the council and members of the public to join him in observing one minute's silence as a mark of respect for Rifleman Martin Lamb of the battalion who was killed while on patrol in the Haji Kareen area of the Nahr-e Saraj District, in Afghanistan.

All members and officers of the council and members of the public observed one minute's silence as a mark of respect for Rifleman Martin Lamb of the battalion who was killed while on patrol in the Haji Kareen area of the Nahr-e Saraj District, in Afghanistan.

The chairman to ask members and officers to consider donating comfort shoeboxes for One Rifles servicemen and women deployed in Afghanistan.

The chairman invited Cllr Osborne to speak about the initiative, since both he and his wife were heavily involved.

Cllr Osborne said that his wife did most of the work and the project was self-funding. She sent boxes every week and to date had sent over 500 boxes. He advised people to put small items such as biscuits, and sweets in the boxes to remind servicemen and women of home. Many of the recipients had emailed their appreciation of the fact that other people in the Forest of Dean were thinking of them. He would welcome members’ support, which he knew would be appreciated.

The chairman to announce that the council achieved the South West Member Development Charter, which was presented at a ceremony in Bristol on 9 June 2011.

The chairman expressed his pleasure in announcing that the council had achieved the South West Charter for Member Development. He added that the council was the first in Gloucestershire to do so. The council had run useful training with good guidance from the Member Development Group, so that councillors gained skills and knowledge to carry out their duties. He showed the award to members and thanked Julie Jones, Democratic Services Manager, Cllr Thomson, Member Champion for Member Development and Cllr Quaile, former chairman of the Member Development Group. He ended by saying that all members could congratulate themselves on achieving the award.

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, 11 July 2011).

Question 1

The following question was received from Mr Lorne Henry

Is the present Forest of Dean District Council strategy on affordable housing stagnating the availability of future housing and flat development, not only to those in need but also to the general public, by unaffordable percentage donations being placed on small developers over 5 units?

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

Thank you for your question.

Planning Policy Statement 3 issued by the Government requires local authorities to set out in Local Development Documents, the likely overall proportions of households that require market or affordable housing. Findings from the latest housing needs survey indicates that there is a need for 50% affordable housing to be provided on mixed tenure developments. Forest of Dean District Council policy for affordable housing on mixed developments seeks a 40% affordable housing provision.

It is recognised and understood that a residential or mixed development needs to be financially viable if it is to proceed. Where applicants make the case that 40% affordable housing is not deliverable individual site viability assessments will be undertaken to assess the applicant’s position. If the Council is satisfied that the financial appraisal confirms that the affordable housing requirement renders the scheme unviable, the Council can consider:

• retaining the target percentage but adjusting the tenure split or unit mix; or
• a lower percentage of affordable housing but retaining the tenure split and unit mix; or
• supporting the introduction of grant funding to achieve the target contribution, tenure split or mix via a cascade; or

a combination of these options, such that the scheme viability is restored.

With the Council having a flexible system to determine the affordable housing provision on an individual site basis whilst enabling the scheme to remain viable, the Council considers that the policy for affordable housing provision on mixed developments is fair and transparent. There is no evidence that the policy is stagnating future housing delivery.

Mr Henry was not present at the meeting, so the council would send him the response to his question.

Question 2

The following question was received from Mr Roger Drury, Woodend, Parkend Walk, Coalway, Coleford, Glos GL16 7JR

As the majority of Councillors expressed their support for the HOOF Campaign in their election promises how is the Council going to fulfil its promises and work with local people to make sure that the Forest remains as it is.

Response from the Cabinet Member for the Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile

I should like to thank Mr Drury for his question - and especially for the timing of it as on the agenda for this evening’s meeting there are three papers that are relevant.  Later on this council will be discussing both the Core Strategy and the Cinderford Area Action plan.  These documents have been extensively consulted upon and they set out our vision for sensitive and sustainable development in the District.  If they are approved, following examination in public, they will form  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider report LD.361 relating to the Head of Paid Service appointment.

Having both declared financial interests, the Head of Paid Service and the Strategic Director left the chamber for this item.

Cllr Molyneux, Leader of the Council, presented report LD.361 containing the recommendations from the Appointments Committee meeting held on 4 July 2011. He emphasised paragraph 5.2 of the report, noting the intention to reduce the cost of senior management by a further £200,000 in three years’ time. The committee had agreed that the two Strategic Directors had been doing an excellent job. It did not consider the recruitment of a full-time or even part-time Chief Executive Officer as the best option, because of the size of the authority, the cost of recruitment, the possible loss of the current Strategic Directors and the need for having leadership that focused exclusively on this council. He believed that the council was lucky to have the incumbents, who had undergone a rigorous selection process.

Cllr Winship said that she had the greatest respect for both Strategic Directors and for the process of selection, in which she had taken part.  However they had been appointed at Strategic Director level and the Head of Paid Service role required more of them. To appoint without competition would be risky.

Cllr Martin asked if she understood correctly that the report did not recommend any additional responsibilities to those currently undertaken by the Strategic Directors.

Cllr Molyneux replied that they had been in their current roles for at least eighteen months and the committee had expressed confidence that they had proved their capability.

Cllr Burford also believed that the Strategic Directors had worked well. He asked if the possible loss of one of them in three years’ time would incur a great cost to the authority.

Cllr Molyneux clarified that every employee was entitled to the same terms of redundancy as at the council’s policy. Since the Strategic Directors had been doing the job for the past eighteen months or so, there seemed no sense in creating another short-term contract.

Cllr Burford asked if it were not more sensible to make the contracts fixed term up to the point when the council considered the reduction in senior management costs.

Cllr Molyneux answered that the recommendation only covered that part of the roles relating to the chief executive function and that Sue Pangbourne and Peter Hibberd were already employed as permanent Strategic Directors.

Cllr Bill Evans asked why paragraph 5.5 specifically mentioned ’cost of living increases’, given that there was a pay freeze.

Cllr Molyneux replied that pay increases were negotiated nationally. Cllr Robinson added that since the additional element of their pay had been a fixed amount, their pay had effectively been eroded. The recommendation would put their employment on the same basis as every other full-time permanent member of staff.

Cllr Hogan commented that local authorities had seen the biggest contraction in resources he could remember during the time since the Strategic Directors had been appointed. They were doing a sterling job, and it would be foolhardy to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider report EDP.42 relating to the responses received to the public consultation following publication of the Core Strategy.

Cllr Robinson, as Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy, presented report EDP.42, commenting that the council had seen the Core Strategy many times and had approved it in February 2011. This report was to note comments made on the strategy and to approve the council’s response to those representations. The council had taken into account the many points raised. He emphasised that the strategy was vitally important and praised the excellent work done to get it to the stage of submission to the Secretary of State.

Cllr Hogan said that it had been wise to take the extra time to scrutinise the strategy and get it right.

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Hogan seconded the motion.

RESOLVED – to endorse the suggested responses to representations regarding the Core Strategy, so that they may be submitted tot the Secretary of State.

Voting was as follows.

For (47) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0)

Abstained (0)

To consider report EDP.43 relating to responses received to the final community consultation on the Cinderford Area Action Plan (Northern Quarter) and to endorse the Cinderford Area Action Plan Masterplan and Design Codes for use as informal planning guidance.

Cllr Molyneux presented report EDP.43, explaining that the Cinderford Area Action Plan followed on from and sat under the Core Strategy. The report related tot eh final round of consultation. There had been a lot of consultation with all interested parties.

Cllr Morgan agreed that there had been a thorough investigation and fully supported the plan.

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the motion.

RESOLVED –

a)      To agree the responses to the final round of community consultation to enable publication and submission of the Cinderford Area Action Plan (Northern Quarter) to the Secretary of State,

b)      To endorse the Cinderford Area Action Plan Masterplan and Design Codes for use as informal planning guidance until the AAP is formally adopted.

Voting was as follows.

For (46) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0)

Abstained (2) - Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner

To consider report F.123 relating to a proposed revision to the Treasury Management Strategy 2011/12 for the Council.

Cllr Robinson presented report F.123, explaining that the Audit Committee had approved the strategy, but that one element needed to be endorsed by Full Council. The monies in variable investments were funds that the council needed to get to quickly and on one occasion in 2010/11 the Section 151 Officer had needed to authorise going over the limit of £8 million.

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Birch seconded the motion.

RESOLVED – to increase the upper limit on variable investments from £8 million to £9 million

Voting was as follows.

For (48) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0)

Abstained (0)

To consider report LD.362 relating to the new electoral arrangements for  Gloucestershire County Council.

Cllr Molyneux presented report LD.362, explaining that the council had been invited to comment on the proposals. He emphasised that the current number of nine county councillors representing the district would be reduced to eight under the Boundary Commission proposals. There had already been much debate about boundaries that were not neat and about names for the divisions. He referred to the tabled annex B to the report, which detailed preferred division titles. (Attached to the minutes).

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Lawton seconded the motion at the agenda, but with the following amendment to replace recommendation d) with ’to endorse the proposed list of names for the divisions in Option 1 at annex B’

Cllr Hogan proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the following amendment to the motion.

That a) and d) (amended) remain as at the agenda

b) However the reduction in the number of electoral division from 63 –53 has led to proposals from the Boundary Commission that pay scant regard to natural communities or communities of interest

c) The proposals to create a predetermined number of electoral divisions i.e. 53 has created this problem and therefore this council urges GCC and the LGBC to revisit the proposals with a more open approach as to the optimum number of councillors

Cllr Hogan believed that to get rid of the awkward multi member divisions was right, but to impose a number and then make the divisions fit into a complex county such as Gloucestershire would always lead to anomalies. He wondered how Steam Mills could possibly relate to English Bicknor. He envisaged county councillors having to represent up to nine parishes or worse part-parishes. He believed that the Conservative group at the county council wanted to slim down the county council for political advantage in a fundamentally undemocratic way. Currently the Forest of Dean was a neat parliamentary constituency, but he could see that changing. He urged the council to send a clear message that the district’s community representatives should actually represent communities that made sense. To have a number as a starting point and then to hack up the district to fit was nonsense.

The chairman asked members to bear in mind that the proposals were from the Boundary Commission, which was independent. He added that the commission had probably not even visited the district. He asked if Cllr Molyneux was prepared to accept the amendment.

Cllr Molyneux said that Cllr Hogan seemed to be making a political point and echoed the chairman in confirming that the proposals came from the Boundary Commission, which was independent. He added that all councils were financially stretched. The county council needed to make cuts and one of those was to reduce the number of its councillors, so that it had single division representatives making casework easier. He said that there would always be issues of contention in boundary changes, but it was wrong to think that predetermining numbers of councillors had created the problem.

Cllr Morgan, a county councillor, said that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To note report SD.75 relating to notification from the Leader of the Council of the Cabinet members and portfolio areas. 

Cllr Molyneux presented report SD.75.

Full Council noted the report with a show of hands.

To consider report LD.357 relating to Member Champion Appointments.

Cllr Molyneux presented report LD.357, commenting that the political group leaders had concluded that the previous arrangements with ten champions had not always worked effectively. The report recommendations were designed to promote a sharper focus for fewer champions to become more involved.

Cllr Martin asked if the role description at recommendation b) could include the sentence ‘to aspire to attaining the member champion qualification’

Cllr Molyneux agreed, commenting that Cllr Martin had been one of the council’s exceptional member champions. He hoped that the friendly amendment would help to underline the importance of the role.

Cllr Winship asked if there would be the opportunity for Full Council to appoint additional champions if the need arose during the four-year term of the council.

Cllr Molyneux replied that a report could be presented to Full Council at any time, outlining the case for a further champion. He added that the Cabinet would be asking for champions to help with specific projects, as the need arose.

Cllr Hogan said that he had hoped the political group leaders could get together to agree the list of champions and suggested a recess to do that.

The chairman called a 15-minute recess at 9.15pm.

The chairman resumed the meeting at 9.30pm and asked the leader for member champion nominations.

Cllr Molyneux said that the roles were very important, that each member should read the guidance brochure produced by the IDeA (now LGID), which was available from Democratic Services. Cllr Martin had agreed to act as a mentor to any new champion needing guidance.

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Edwards seconded the motion.

RESOLVED –

a) To appoint Member Champions for the term of the Council   2011/15 in the following areas:

• Health – Cllr Frank Baynham
• Older People – Cllr Judy Davis
• Children and Young People – Cllr Jane Horne
• Equalities – Cllr Ian Whitburn

b) To adopt the Champion Role Description set out at Annex A, as amended

c) To request that the Independent Remuneration Panel assess the work involved in acting as Champion and whether a Special Responsibility Allowance should be paid.

Voting was as follows.

For (45) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson

Against (1) - Lynn Sterry

Abstained (1) - Paul Hiett

To appoint a deputy for the Gloucestershire County Council Health, Community and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The chairman invited nominations for the position of deputy for the Gloucestershire County Council Health, Community and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Cllr Lawton nominated and Cllr Ede seconded Carole Allaway Martin

Cllr Hogan nominated and Cllr Thomson seconded Cllr Frank Baynham

When nominations were put to the vote Carole Allaway Martin was appointed deputy for the Gloucestershire County Council Health, Community and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To consider report SD.74 the Forest of Dean District Council’s response to the Independent Panel on Forestry. 

Cllr Quaile, Cabinet Member for the Environment reminded members of the setting up of the Woodlands Advisory Group (WAG) and thanked Cllr Gardiner, as lead member, for his hard work over the previous eight weeks and Peter Hibberd, Strategic Director, for his assistance in putting together the report. He drew members’ attention to annex A, which set out the council’s response to the five questions posed by the Independent Panel on Forestry. He then invited Cllr Gardiner to present the background to the report.

 Cllr Gardiner reminded members of the previous exemption obtained for the Forest of Dean and adjacent woodland. The area in question now had been extended to include 37 woodlands as a single entity. The Independent Panel on Forestry had visited the district on 12 and 13 June, visiting woodland and holding meetings with interested stakeholders. The council had organised a series of road shows across the district to consult the public. The local consultation had resulted in 56 detailed responses, 44 individual responses from the Forest Youth Forum in addition to comments taken at the road shows. Public ownership was deemed essential to retain current access, wildlife, health and biodiversity.

The chairman added his thanks to Cllr Gardiner for his phenomenal work, achieved straight after the local elections.

Cllr Molyneux thanked Cllr Gardiner for his energy, excellent report and for organising the panel’s visit, and Cllr Quaile and Peter Hibberd for their support. The response was a very important document, which set the right tone for the panel to consider. He hoped that all councillors would endorse the report.

Cllr Gardiner proposed and Cllr Quaile seconded the motion.

RESOLVED –

a)      To note the response at Annex A to report SD.74.

b)     To delegate to the Strategic Director, in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder and Lead Member, authority to make minor editorial and presentational changes to the response prior to submission by the 31 July 2011 deadline.

Voting was as follows.

For (48) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0)

Abstained (0) 

To consider report LD.360 from a joint meeting of the Community and Corporate Scrutiny Committees relating to Section 106 contributions retained by the Forest of Dean District Council.

Cllr Lawton, as previous chairman of the joint meeting of the Community and Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committees, presented report LD.360.

Cllr Lawton Proposed and Cllr Ede seconded the motion as at report LD.360.

Cllr Burford proposed and Cllr Pugh seconded the following amendment.

c) Whilst accepting recommendations  (a) and (b) due to the exceptional circumstances surrounding the money held by the council in connection with Hartpury Parish this council recommends that the Cabinet pass on the investment income earned along with the principal sum when it becomes due.

Cllr Lawton asked the chairman if the amendment did not reverse recommendation b).

The chairman ruled that it did not.

Cllr Burford took the opportunity to inform new members of the questions posed by the Hartpury case.

Q - Why had the money not been spent?

A – As part of a separate Section 106 Planning Agreement the parish was set to receive a piece of land for building, which the owner was not prepared to release until he had received money for other land.

Q – When will the money be spent?

A – Hartpury Parish Council had already identified a piece of land, which had been discussed with the district council’s planning team, so the money could be spent within 12 weeks of approval.

Q – What has happened in the past?

A – In earlier days agreements had not been as tight and there were a couple of examples of parishes holding monies.

Q – Whose money is it?

A – Not the council’s, but it comes from the developer The council holds it and has a duty to ensure that it is used for the purpose intended by the s106 agreement. The money should not appear in the council’s budget. The administration cost for releasing the money was built into original planning charges paid by the developer.

Q – What is the risk to the council?

A – Cllr Burford accepted that the money had to be held in a short-term account, since it might be needed at short notice.

He asked members who they thought should have the interest if their own personal money were the issue.

Cllr Lawton expressed his admiration for Cllr Burford’s tenacity. However viewing the issue from a district wide perspective he believed the money belonged to the project. The council always wanted to pay monies as soon as possible, but there was a danger in setting the precedent suggested in the Hartpury case, even though the amendment used the term ‘exceptional circumstances’. The scrutiny committees had considered the matter carefully, including noting that investment returns could go down as well as up. He understood Cllr Burford’s point and said that in an ideal world all s106 monies should include interest accrued, but that would incur a larger administration cost. He accepted the resolution made at the scrutiny meeting and could not support the amendment.

Cllr Winship asked the exact amount of money in question, whether the funds could be paid without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

With the necessary cuts to important positions to streamline the council, is it not time that members considered removing the cabinet system, which is expensive and not really needed.

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

How many planning applications were passed by the Planning Committee, against the planning officer’s recommendation, during the last council year?

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

Has this Council made any payments to Monmouthshire County Council, for the bus services 761 and C1 that run through the Tidenham Parish, if so how much, and for how long?

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

DEFRA has categorised the Forest of Dean and adjacent woodland in Herefordshire into a cluster comprising 32 ‘heritage’ sub-woodlands and 4 ‘small commercial’ woodlands, with ‘heritage’ having the highest protection against privatisation and ‘small commercial’ having least protection. In view of this hierarchical categorisation of woodland, this Council requests Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to amend the categorisation of the 3 ‘small commercial’ woodlands located within the Forest of Dean District Council’s boundary, to ‘heritage’ woodlands. The 3 ‘small commercial’ woodlands to which we refer are (1) Tidenham Chase and Poor Allotment, (2) Clanna, and (3) Bearse Common & Slade Bottom.

A copy of the letter to the Minister to be sent to Mark Harper MP and the Bishop of Liverpool as Chair of the Independent Panel on Forestry.

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

This Council agrees to recommend to Cabinet that it maintain funding for CCTV coverage in the four market towns for the remainder of the current financial year.  This action will allow town councils and the wider Forest community to work with this council to make financial arrangements for the future.  

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

That this Council requests a thorough Scrutiny Review of the changes to the opening hours which started on July 4^th 2011, with particular emphasis on:

a)      the proposed savings of £80,000, including  identifying any increased costs of providing the service ( e.g. a 24 hour telephone line);

b)      the effects on members of the public, including the possibility of a severe reduction in the availability of public transport and

c)      the effects on staff of the authority.

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

That this Council condemns any move by the County Council to reduce the subsidies to buses in and around the Forest of Dean, as any reduction would have a detrimental effect on many people, and the provision of many facilities and services in the area.

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

That this Council urges the County Council to seriously consider the request of the Friends of the Wilderness and Plump Hill Environmental Studies Centre, Mitcheldean, to support them in their attempt to find alternative funding and produce a more viable business plan for the running of this centre, so that they can be independent of the County Council. This would be very much along the same lines as the management of the South Cerney Outdoor Education Centre which will be run by a partnership. The Wilderness and Plump Hill Environmental Studies Centre is regarded very highly nationally and has been visited by 300,000 children over the past 43 years, and it would be a tremendous loss were it sold to the highest bidder.

To be considered at the meeting to be held on 20 July 2011.

a)     Standards Committee Annual Report 

b)     Scrutiny Annual Report 

c)      Member Development Group Annual Report

a)     Standards Committee Annual Report

Tony Elkington, chairman of the Standards Committee presented the report.  He highlighted the fact that the greater number of complaints had been against town and parish councillors. A small number had established a serious breach or had been referred to the Monitoring Officer for further investigation. However, there was no doubt that in some parishes the system had provided a means of provoking tit for tat complaints, which should not have come to committee and which had resulted in cost to the council and time wasted for committee members.

The abolition of the formal standards regime under the Localism Bill could lead to more powers and fewer controls for parish councils. It also posed the question of whether the council would retain a code of conduct and a standards committee and what sanctions would be available to the council.

He was in no doubt that the current system was overly bureaucratic. However he questioned whether the proposed single sanction of criminal proceedings for conduct relating to fraud was sufficient.

Currently all the notices were published to ensure openness, so that the public could see the complaints and perhaps ask why so many had been made by the same complainants.

He ended by saying that he had not tried to give any answers. They would be for the council once the Localism Bill was enacted. He invited questions.

The chairman thanked him for his report. As a member of the committee for four years, the chairman said that he looked forward to working with the council’s legal team and others to ensure an effective scheme to allow the public to maintain confidence and to hold councillors to account.

Full Council noted the report.

Thursday 6 October 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 15 December 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 23 February 2012 at 7pm

Thursday 26 April 2012 at 7pm

Thursday 24 May 2012 at 7pm

Thursday 6 October 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 15 December 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 23 February 2012 at 7pm

Thursday 26 April 2012 at 7pm

Thursday 24 May 2012 at 7pm