To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Peter Amos, Georgina Bensted, Grace Bensted, Clive Brain, David Easton, Diana Edwards, Nikki Goodlad, Sue Henchley, Paul Hiett, Richard Long, Alan Preest, Brian Robinson, Des Saunders and Marion Winship.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made.

The Chairman to announce this Council’s continued support for the 1^st Battalion the Rifles as they depart for a second tour of Duty to Afghanistan.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

At the request of the Safety Panel and in the interests of security the chairman to remind members to ask for identification from any unknown person in the building.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

This item was completed at the meeting held on 24 February 2011.

The Chairman of the ICT Task Group, Councillor David Thomson to present the final report LD.318 from the group.

Cllr Thomson, task group chairman, presented report LD.318, explaining that ICT had been a complicated and frustrating issue for members at times. The task group had pulled together many strands to reach what it had hoped were sensible conclusions. The review had included consultations with all councillors, other councils and officers. Consultations showed that problems were handled quickly, once raised with the ICT team. Improvements to such matters as the access gateway were made during the course of the review.

It had been crucial to build in support from the ICT and Democratic Services teams if members were expected to buy and operate their own equipment and broadband. The recommendations addressed this and the Member Development Group had commissioned a new member handbook, which would also contain guidance.

It was the responsibility of groups and individual members to see the benefits of using ICT for council work in being able to access information and communicate more effectively.

Cllr Quaile thanked the task group for a very good report and as a member of the Member Development Group fully supported all recommendations. He suggested that recommendations d), e) and f) might now be removed, since the IRP had presented its report at the previous meeting.

Cllr Thomson believed that the recommendations formed part of the ‘story’ of the task group’s work and should remain.

Cllr Quaile accepted the point.

RESOLVED – that

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

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

c)      The IT department provide details of the minimum PC specification requirements and support members as required in their purchase of the equipment that will best meet their needs e.g. desktop machine, laptop or netbook.

d)     Any members’ IT allowance become part of the basic personal allowance payable to all Members and be considered by the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP).

e)     In arriving at a recommendation to Full Council for the basic Member allowance payable in 2011/12, working on a fifty percent contribution, the IRP has due regard to the monthly cost of a broadband connection, modem, anti-virus software, print consumables; and the initial purchase or upgrade cost of a personal PC and printer.

f)        The IRP recognise that the basic personal allowance is taxable; therefore any element added in place of the current IT allowance and the contribution shown at recommendation e) reflect this.

g)     In addition to recommendation b), a hardship fund be made available to elected members in receipt of a means tested benefit to support any initial purchase costs, with the basic personal allowance being adjusted accordingly to reflect this.

h)     Prior to being connected to the Citrix Access Gateway, all newly elected members be required to complete a core IT induction covering the topics

·        Using the Citrix Access Gateway

·        Protecting the Council’s Information and Data

·        Intranet

i)        A range of optional training be made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To safeguard the Royal Forest of Dean, the contiguous woods and other woodlands within the Forest of Dean District for future generations and to protect our traditions and privileges this Council should do everything in its power to prevent the Forest and these woodlands from being taken out of public ownership and from being managed by any body other than the Forestry Commission, and accordingly the Council resolves -  

"That

a.    this Council opposes any proposal to take out of public ownership  the Forest of     Dean and Dymock, Queens, Linton, Mailscot, Highmeadow, Huntsham Hill, Clearwell, Hope,  Flaxley, Lea Bailey, Lords Wood, Mugglewort, Welshbury, bearse/Slade, Clanna, Tidenham and Wye Valley, Bishopswood (part Herefordshire) Leasehold, Kidnalls (Leasehold) Courtfield (Leasehold) and Little Doward (Herefordshire).

 b.    the Council opposes any proposal to transfer the management and/or ownership of the Forest and any of these woods to a charity,

 c.    the Council urges the Secretary of State to retain the Forest and these woodlands in public ownership and to ensure their continued management by the Forestry Commission, and

d.    the Council reaffirms its determination to retain the exemption from disposal afforded by Section 39(2A) of the Forestry Act 1967, as amended,

 Also that the Defra Consultation Document be completed on behalf of the Council in a manner to reflect this resolution.

In conjunction with the foregoing this Council to:

Write to Mark Harper MP and Prime Minister David Cameron MP, and the Secretary of State, and electronically copy to Members of Parliament and Local Authorities, requesting their urgent support for this resolution and for the exemption of the Forest of Dean and these woodlands from Clause 17 of the Public Bodies Bill.

And further, 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 Commons, namely, through  Mark Harper MP and his Office to meet and engage with the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman; the Head of Paid Services and the Solicitor to the Council to make all necessary arrangements.

Cllr Gardiner began by thanking Cllr Hogan for his friendly amendment to the recommendations in report LD.319 regarding the delegation to the House of Lords resolved at the meeting on 24 February 2011.

He made the following amendment so that point h) of his motion now read

h) For this Council to write to Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman and MP Mark Harper requesting for the Forest of Dean District Council to be represented on the Forestry Panel by a Member & Deputy Member & Member of the Forest of Dean Youth Forum and a Forestry Expert.

Cllr Gardiner proposed and Cllr Meredith Edwards seconded the motion as amended.

He explained that it was important to involve the Forestry Commission, which had considerable experience and expertise in managing the forests sustainably. He also welcomed the contributions made by many people and groups including the Youth Forum.

He reminded members of the rich diversity of the forest, which included areas such as the Wye gorge and heritage mining areas. He emphasised that the hard-won customs and privileges enjoyed by the people of the forest, were not rights and must be protected. He urged members to act together in supporting his motion.

Cllr Fraser said that he had sympathy with the motion, but that to determine who should represent the district on the panel excluded other major interested parties such as tourism operators, who had an equal claim. If all were represented, then the panel would be too large. He asked Cllr Gardiner to reconsider his new amendment.

Cllr Gardiner replied that he understood that there would only be about 12 places on the panel, but argued that since people from the Forest of Dean had made about 80 per cent of the representations to the government the district should be strongly represented on the panel. It was vitally important that a councillor with an active deputy be on the panel. He had been impressed by the eloquence of a Youth Forum member previously and believed that it was important to engage with the young people of the district, in whom he had great confidence. He added that tourism operators had probably already made their own representations.

Cllr Shenoi endorsed the objectives of the motion, but questioned the council’s right to determine the membership of the panel. He had faith in the government to undertake that task. He also questioned the council’s right to speak on behalf of the people of Herefordshire, as mentioned in point a) of the motion and asked how these points added weight to the motion. He believed that the motion should have a simple specification.

Cllr Allaway Martin said that Caroline Spelman should be grateful to receive representations from the council and other bodies. However it might be even more worthwhile and have more impact if the panel visited the district and listened to local people. The council could host and actively manage representations from all interested parties before the visit.

The Solicitor reminded members of a similar resolution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.1

“That this Council notes, with indignation, that whilst our local community is facing huge budget cuts for essential services including health and social care, the UK ‘s contribution to the European Union (EU) is set to rise by 60% over two years.

This Council notes that, despite the opposition of some MPs, and MEPs, it is likely that the coalition government will agree to a substantial increase in the overall EU budget.

This Council believes the EU budget allocation should be treated the same as the other tiers of government and the EU should not be allowed to spend beyond its means.

The government’s priority should be to safeguard local services.

This Council therefore urges our MP not to support an increase in the EU budget.”

Cllr Shenoi proposed and Cllr Lawton seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Cllr Shenoi explained that since the Common Market referendum in 1975 he had been visiting mainland Europe each year as a consultant. He had seen ‘horrendous’ lobbying by southern Mediterranean countries, huge costs associated with both Strasbourg and Brussels and a doubling of the UK’s contribution to the European Union (EU) budget in the past ten years. The European Parliament had little say on the budget and the Council of Ministers haggled. The budget did not even have satisfactory audit arrangements. He believed that the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher was at risk and bemoaned the fact that, in his belief, 70 to 75 per cent of British law was made by the EU. He opined that the EU was operated on the basis of the lowest common denominator and urged members to support his motion.

Cllr Bevan expressed his gratitude that someone had proposed for the first time a motion relating to the EU and thought that the council should hold its own mini-referendum via this motion.

Cllr Horne pointed out that European law would soon lead to increased car insurance premiums.

Cllr Stephens agreed with the motion and said that perhaps a motion regarding a referendum could be put at a later meeting. He believed the aphorism that ‘charity begins at home’ and was appalled that the ‘gravy train’ continued while huge cuts were taking place in this country. He looked forward to a time when the experiment of the EU failed.

Cllr Quaile asked about the origin of the figure of 60 per cent mentioned in the motion. Cllr Shenoi replied that he would be happy to circulate the relevant document.

Cllr Hogan agreed that the EU budget was out of control at a time when local councils were bearing the brunt of front-loaded cuts in this country, but he would not jump on an anti-Europe bandwagon. He pointed out that the European Court of Justice was separate from the EU and that Britain had been a member before 1975. He asked Cllr Shenoi, as a fellow scientist, what the empirical measurement for law was, suggesting that it was impossible to quantify law. He said that he would abstain on this issue, as much of the motion was meaningless.

Cllr Shenoi countered that because the UK had no written constitution it regarded statute as sacrosanct and followed it to the letter. However in other European countries with a different tradition it was common to agree laws and then find ways around them. He was merely stating that a large amount of law affecting the UK emanated from the EU.

Cllr Allaway Martin commented that the council had agonized to set a balanced budget and believed that the rigours applied should also be reflected in the EU budget, which did not even have adequate audit arrangements.

Cllr Thomson defended European laws, stating that they had brought more countries up to common standards in such areas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.2

“that consideration be given to impose a 5% surcharge on Business Tax Rates pertaining to all take-aways/fast-food outlets that trade after 2200 hours (10pm) . The 5% surcharge should subsequently be allocated directly to offset/contribute to the cost of street cleaning in our District.”

Cllr Preest’s motion was withdrawn.

Due to the ongoing delay in commencement with the refurbishment of the Heywood Leisure Centre, I request that a meeting be held with District and Town Officers and representatives from Heywood School, to discuss a possible programme of works to be undertaken at the Leisure Centre, to improve the swimming facilities.  The money has been ring fenced by the District Council, and a timetable should now be agreed with regard to delivery if the programme.

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

Cllr Coborn explained that the budget for improvements to the leisure centre had been in the council’s budget since 2006 and still no work had begun, while other centres in the district had been refurbished. His motion attempted to get all interested parties together to finally get something done. He commented that in the swimming pool changing rooms some ceiling tiles were stuck on with tape, adding that the current situation did a disservice to the people of Cinderford.

Cllr Martin said that this had been ongoing for years and the leisure centre was sub-standard, not even meeting basic disabilities requirements. She recognised that regeneration for Cinderford was in process but that nothing had yet happened. The town council was keen to become involved and she hoped that the whole district council would give its support to getting the work done.

Cllr Bevan expressed sympathy with the people of Cinderford and gave full support to the motion, commenting that Lydney had benefited from great improvements.

Cllr Riley, as Cabinet Member for Community, also expressed his support for the motion and sympathy with the feelings about the length of time the issue had taken. However he pointed out that there was still a lot of uncertainty concerning plans for the northern quarter of the district and that if works began the council might be spending money on duplication.

Cllr Quaile proposed that the question be put, but the proposal failed when put to a show of hands.

Cllr Morgan, as chairman of the Cinderford Regeneration Board, welcomed a meeting to finally sort out the matter. The money had been originally agreed to ensure satisfactory disabled access to the leisure centre and a single point of entry to the school for security purposes. He ended by stating that a resolution to this matter was long overdue.

Cllr Molyneux informed members that the plans for the northern quarter were moving on and that there would be an announcement in the near future resulting from the hard work put in by many people. He agreed that the proposed meeting should take place and should set a timetable for action. However he defended the council’s actions to date regarding Cinderford.

Cllr Hogan challenged Cllr Riley’s assertion regarding the works being a possible duplication of plans in the regeneration programme. He had not seen anywhere plans to replace the leisure centre or pool. Indeed the fitness centre was a nationally recognised facility. He added that currently the council was vulnerable to possible action over disabled access. He believed that after five years of procrastination the money in the budget had reduced in value and urged that action be taken now.

Cllr Horne said that she had recently visited Heywood Leisure Centre and had been horrified at the condition of the pool and changing rooms, compared with those in Newent and Lydney. It was high time that the money be spent, even if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.4

Have any members taken advantage of such training and development opportunities as the visit to Strasbourg offered by Julia Girling MEP?

Development opportunities

Have any members taken advantage of such training and development opportunities as the visit to Strasbourg offered by Julia Girling MEP?

Response from Cabinet Member for the Environment and Chairman of the Member Development Group, Councillor Martin Quaile

As far as I am aware no members have opted to go on the visit to Strasbourg as offered by Julia Girling MEP.  Many members have taken advantage of training and development and are always encouraged to do so by the Member Development Group. 

No supplementary question.

Would the council ensure that the Parking Enforcement Officers are rigorous in preventing parking in places such as loading bays, which adversely affects local businesses?

On-street parking enforcement

Would the council ensure that the Parking Enforcement Officers are rigorous in preventing parking in places such as loading bays, which adversely affects local businesses?

Response from Councillor Martin Quaile, Cabinet Member for the Environment

The Civil Enforcement Officer will treat all acts of illegal parking with the same rigour, in all towns within the District.

Supplementary question

What are you going to tell the enforcement officers to highlight this problem?

Response from Councillor Quaile

Cllr Quaile replied that the council was in continuous contact with enforcement officers, directing them to areas where they should go.

The original budget for the Go 4 project was £242,000, in September 2010 the revised business case investment was £367,729,

Why was the increase necessary?

What were the detailed changes in the business case?

What budget heading did the extra £125,729 come from?

What has been spent to date?

What savings were gained from the reduction to four partners in the project?

What is the possibility of further changes in the business case?

GO Project

The original budget for the GO4 project was £242,000, in September the revised business case investment was £367,729.

Why was the increase necessary?

What were the detailed changes in the business case?

What budget heading did the extra £125,729 come from?

What has been spent to date?

What savings were gained from the reduction to four partners in the project?

What is the possibility of further changes in the business case?

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

The revised business case was considered by Cabinet on 16^th September 2010, the extract below from report F.71 details the changes between the original and revised business cases:

The following table shows the comparison between the costs and savings above and the costs and savings approved in December 2009.

The capital costs have increased for several reasons.  Firstly, the costs of implementation are now shared between four partners rather than seven.  Secondly, the procurement exercise has now provided firm costs whereas the original business case was based on soft market testing.  Thirdly, the capital costs for infrastructure are now based on the specification developed for the Support and Hosting Centre of Excellence (COE).  The one-off revenue costs have been reduced largely as a result of the work done to develop the Hosting and Support COE.

Cabinet agreed to fund this increase from uncommitted capital resources.

At this stage we have not incurred any costs as all invoices from the supplier will be processed by Cheltenham Borough Council who will in turn invoice the other three councils.

It is possible that the figures in the final business case (actuals) will vary with regards savings.  The management board are currently considering whether better returns will accrue with a single centre of excellence.

Supplementary question

Cllr Birch said that he would send his supplementary questions to the Council.

Response from Councillor Brian Robinson

The Council would send the answers to Cllr Birch’s supplementary question to all members.

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

There were no questions on any of the reports.

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm

Thursday 14 April 2011 at 7pm