To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Frank Beard, Roy Birch, Paul Hiett, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Bill Osborne and Marion Winship and from Peter Hibberd, Strategic Director and Marie Rosenthal, Solicitor.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

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.

On invitation from the chairman Cllr Hogan expressed his deep appreciation for all the messages and cards he had received from political groups and from individual councillors following his recent illness. They had been a boost to his morale and he was pleased to say that he was well on the mend.

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 Corporal Mark Anthony Palin of the battalion who was killed by an improvised explosive device in the Haji Kareen area of the Nahr-e Saraj District, in Afghanistan.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

This item was considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

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.

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux 

The last Council introduced the Cabinet System to the Council and I am of the opinion that this was a major contributor to the significant improvements to the way in which the Council operates over the last three years. 

More recently, the Council undertook a Public Consultation exercise on the Cabinet System as required by legislation.  There was some interest from local people in making changes but overall very little engagement on the issue.

At the moment, the Council is constrained by legislation in that it cannot remove the Cabinet System and revert to the old style Committee System unless there is a change in the Law. The Localism Bill currently going through Parliament will allow Councils to do this provided it goes through a Public Consultation process.  We are keeping a close eye on the Localism Bill and there will be a Report to Cabinet later this year setting out its proposals so that we can build them into our medium term planning.

Supplementary question

She did not believe Cabinet to be a fair and democratic system and asked if the money it cost would not be better spent on the community, giving the example of CCTV.

Response from Cllr Molyneux

He emphasised that the council spent all money carefully as part of a planned budget to get the best from services. The issue of the cabinet was separate. When he had first been a councillor over four years previously, he had seen the Executive Committee in operation, which was politically balanced. This had perhaps not delivered results for residents, since its members seemed to spend much time arguing between themselves about officer recommendations they had not been involved in.

The cabinet system puts cabinet members at the forefront, working closely with officers from the beginning of projects, putting forward the views of the community. There had been teething problems over the first three years, but the cabinet system was being opened out to work on the whole council’s behalf. He had already introduced members’ question time and urged all members to attend cabinet meetings. The cabinet would also be answering questions at the scrutiny committee meeting to be held on 21 July. All cabinet members were available to speak to personally and he urged members to raise issues early, as there was no point in coming to council meetings at the last minute when a final report was to be presented.

He believed that the cabinet system put members at the heart of the council.

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.

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Patrick Molyneux 

The last Council introduced the Cabinet System to the Council and I am of the opinion that this was a major contributor to the significant improvements to the way in which the Council operates over the last three years. 

More recently, the Council undertook a Public Consultation exercise on the Cabinet System as required by legislation.  There was some interest from local people in making changes but overall very little engagement on the issue.

At the moment, the Council is constrained by legislation in that it cannot remove the Cabinet System and revert to the old style Committee System unless there is a change in the Law. The Localism Bill currently going through Parliament will allow Councils to do this provided it goes through a Public Consultation process.  We are keeping a close eye on the Localism Bill and there will be a Report to Cabinet later this year setting out its proposals so that we can build them into our medium term planning.

Supplementary question

She did not believe Cabinet to be a fair and democratic system and asked if the money it cost would not be better spent on the community, giving the example of CCTV.

Response from Cllr Molyneux

He emphasised that the Council spent all money carefully as part of a planned budget to get the best from services. The issue of the cabinet was separate. When he had first been a councillor over four years previously, he had seen the Executive Committee in operation, which was politically balanced. This had perhaps not delivered results for residents, since its members seemed to spend much time arguing between themselves about officer recommendations they had not been involved in.

The Cabinet System puts cabinet members at the forefront, working closely with officers from the beginning of projects, putting forward the views of the community. There had been teething problems over the first three years, but the Cabinet System was being opened out to work on the whole council’s behalf. He had already introduced members’ question time and urged all members to attend cabinet meetings. The Cabinet would also be answering questions at the scrutiny committee meeting to be held on 21 July. All cabinet members were available to speak to personally and he urged members to raise issues early, as there was no point in coming to council meetings at the last minute when a final report was to be presented.

He believed that the Cabinet system put members at the heart of the council.

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

Response from the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury  

Between May 2010 and April 2011, 17 applications out of 124 (14%) were passed by the Planning Committee against the planning officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Birch had sent a supplementary question to the relevant member and officer. The replies would be circulated to all members.

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

Response from the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury  

Between May 2010 and April 2011, 17 applications out of 124 (14%) were passed by the Planning Committee against the planning officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Birch had sent a supplementary question to the relevant member and officer. The replies would be circulated to all members.

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?

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

No, the Council makes no payments in respect of these services that are co-ordinated by the County Council.  The 761 service is provided by “Chepstow Classic” and the C1 by “Bebb Travel” for which the County may re-imburse concessionary travel.  This Council does not hold detailed records of any payments that might be paid.

Cllr Birch had sent a supplementary question to the relevant member and officer. The replies would be circulated to all members.

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?

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

No, the Council makes no payments in respect of these services that are co-ordinated by the County Council.  The 761 service is provided by “Chepstow Classic” and the C1 by “Bebb Travel” for which the County may re-imburse concessionary travel.  This Council does not hold detailed records of any payments that might be paid.

 Cllr Birch had sent a supplementary question to the relevant member and officer. The replies would be circulated to all members.

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.

Cllr Gardiner proposed and Cllr Quaile seconded the motion tabled at the meeting

RESOLVED –

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, and the establishment of an Independent Forestry Panel to advise on the future of forestry,  this Council requests Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,  to consider  the following:-

a)     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.

b)     In order that the important work undertaken by the Independent Forestry Panel is not prejudiced in any way, that  this Council requests the Minister’s assurance  that no action will be taken to reduce the numbers  of Forestry Commission employees while the Panel carries out its function. 

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.

The voting was as follows.

For (42) – 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, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Baynham, 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)

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.  

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

Cllr Coborn referred to the meeting arranged with the four town mayors three weeks previously. He had arrived at the meeting believing that the CCTV funding would last until the end of the financial year 2011/12. He was shocked to be told that the town councils needed to provide a further £15,000 or the cameras would be switched off on 31 August 2011. He stated that Cinderford Town Council could not precept half way through a year, but it believed CCTV to be vital to the towns and the police. He did not think the town councils had been properly consulted.

Cllr Diana Edwards clarified that town councils were asked to inform the council by 31 August if they were prepared to fund CCTV. If the town councils decided not to fund the initiative, the process of decommissioning would then begin, but the cameras would not be switched off on that date. She stated that the town councils had known for two years the district council’s intention to withdraw funding, because it had been in the medium term financial plan as part of the 2009 budget. Town councils were therefore aware in good time to consider and implement alternative arrangements.

She reminded members of the Full Council resolution from February 2011, which agreed a one-off payment to give the town councils more time to seek a solution. It did not state that the payment would cover CCTV costs to the end of the financial year. There remained £8,081 of the payment. The BT contract was paid up for two quarters of the year and required one month’s notice to cancel.

She hoped that members would agree that the council had done all it could to work with the town councils. The police had made the decision to withdraw funding for office space and time. She could not agree to spend even more money by overturning the previous Full Council resolution. She would not be supporting the motion.

Cllr Morgan said that Cinderford Town Council had not been consulted or notified of the district council’s intention. He had been on the original committee that planned and sought funding for setting up the CCTV system. He believed that the service was a district not a town council responsibility, since people from outlying villages came to the towns to access services. It was time for this council to accept its responsibility.

Cllr Robinson said that he believed that Cllr Morgan had been present at the Full Council meeting in 2009 and so would have seen the report concerning the intention to withdraw funding. In February 2011, after a thorough debate, Full Council agreed in full the request for a one-off payment. He was disappointed that some of the town councils were not telling the council of their intentions.

He had seen figures showing a recent decrease in crime, which he believed had been partly due to initiatives such as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.2

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.

Cllr O’Neill proposed and Cllr Hogan seconded the motion as at the agenda. Cllr O’Neill explained that the matter had arisen at a recent training session and concerned three main areas set out in his motion. He had asked for the matter to be referred for scrutiny.

The chairman ruled that the matter be passed to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

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.

Cllr O’Neill proposed and Cllr Hogan seconded the motion at the agenda.

Cllr O’Neill considered his motion friendly and explained that bus services were vital to young and old alike for purposes such as work, shopping and banking. Any reduction in subsidy would also affect local businesses. The county council’s consultation had been flawed in that it merely gave choices about which cuts to make, rather than whether to make any cuts. Additionally to ask for opinion regarding evenings, weekends and Sundays was meaningless, given that people used Sundays like any other day for shopping. He also mentioned that one suggestion would leave people 50 minutes to complete their business before the only bus returned them home. He informed members that the county council at its next but one meeting would make the final decision.

Cllr Molyneux commented that while sympathetic to the motion, the cuts had been necessary as a result of the previous Labour government’s actions. He repeated that it was easy to just spend money. The cut in bus subsidies was only one of many that the county council needed to make. It had already made its main decision and the motion simply condemned that decision without suggesting alternatives or arguing the case for the district on the grounds of it being rural or less well off. He believed that the council needed to send a stronger message for the county to take note of the district’s special circumstances. He had earlier circulated to all members an amendment to the motion.

Cllr Lawton agreed with the leader, commenting that the motion was combative in tone and that this authority needed to work together with other authorities.

Cllr Quaile stated that the proposed cuts were already in the county council’s budget. This council should be seeking bus services offering the best value for money, citing route 666, which averaged 150 passengers per year at an individual cost of £45.72 for a return trip. The county council review listed each route with options and all town and parish councils had been asked for their views. The door had not yet been closed, so he could not accept the motion at the agenda.

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Molyneux seconded the following amendment.

That this council recognises the need to improve value for money from the subsidy provided for bus travel, but any move to reduce the buses in and around the Forest of Dean District will have a detrimental effect on many people and the provision of many facilities and services.  We urge Gloucestershire County Council to take this into consideration when introducing changes following the consultation that closed 27 June 2011.

Cllr Robinson explained that the reason for proposing an amendment was in the hope of sending a motion, which would make a difference. While the decision to reduce subsidies had already been made, there would still be subsidies to the value of £3 million. He had been active in his division (area) in seeking opinion and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.4

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.

Cllr O’Neill proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the motion at the agenda.

Cllr O’Neill realised that it was a little late in the process and thanked the leader for taking the urgent question at the last Full Council meeting. The decision to close the Wilderness Centre reminded him of the same fate that had befallen Cowley Manor 30 years previously, when a respected, useful centre was sold off. He found the decision incredible, given its success in attracting more than 300,000 young people. He quoted from a letter from the local MP Mark Harper to County Councillor Windsor Clive, concerning a consultant’s view that the centre was unviable. The Labour Group had not had enough county council members to call in the decision. The Leader of Gloucestershire County Council had visited the centre and commented that it would need significant improvement to be accessible to the disabled. However in August 2010 the centre did have disabled access and facilities. The centre was close to being self reliant, currently raising 70 per cent of running costs in revenues. School and other organisations in the county and elsewhere were still keen to use the centre and interested parties were hoping to establish an educational trust. He mentioned South Cerney watersports centre as an example of a successful, financially viable venture, which was paying a peppercorn rent to the county, adding that the same could be done for the Wilderness Centre. He pointed out that if the centre were sold off, so would its accompanying 100 acres of forest. He finished by informing members that the county had written to the district and all parish councils, inviting expressions of interest in properties.

He asked if the consultants used in writing recommendations to the county council cabinet were the same ones being used to manage the possible sale.

Cllr Robinson said that he believed the motion to be reasonable, although possibly too late. He could not answer the question, as he was not the accountable county councillor in this matter. He acknowledged that the centre provided an excellent service, albeit at a substantial cost and he was concerned that the county taxpayers were funding a service provided for people elsewhere in the country. He believed that the county council should set as a high priority services to the children within the county. The county council had listened to the representations, but the buildings were old an in need of repair and the decision had been made. However he was happy to support the motion, while recognising that most of the points it contained had been addressed.

Cllr Gardiner said that he had many years experience of the Wilderness Centre. He hoped that the conservative members would recognise the large degree of localism contained in the motion and would join him in supporting it.

Cllr Lawton too had been associated with the centre, as an archery instructor. He was in favour of local people helping themselves and supported the motion.

RESOLVED -

That this council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.5

a)     Standards Committee Annual Report 

b)     Scrutiny Annual Report 

c)      Member Development Group Annual Report

The annual report from the Standards Committee had been considered at the meeting held on 14 July 2011.

Cllrs Lawton and Hale presented the annual scrutiny report. Cllr Hale commented that both Cllr Yeates and Cllr Bevan had been vice chairmen of the Community Scrutiny and Review Committee at different times during 2010/11.

Full Council noted the report.

Cllr Quaile presented the Member Development Group annual report, thanking its members for their work during 2010/11.

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