HEADLINE

The Forest Council’s Green Party leadership has seen off a no-confidence vote over the handling of a blueprint for 13,200-homes.

Forest of Dean District Council debated last night (February 19) the motion by Councillor John Francis (Ind, Longhope and Huntley) which sought to depose Council Leader Adrian Birch (G, Tidenham) and his Cabinet.

The Independent put forward the proposal due to what he sees as the “undemocratic” way the council has dealt with the emerging Local Plan for the district.

The administration defeated the proposal by a single vote.

This accusation was rejected by Green councillors on the night.

Under the latest proposals to meet the Government-imposed housing targets, the District Council is considering the allocation of a 3,500- home town at Glynchbrook in Redmarley near junction 2 of the M50 as well as around 2,000 homes off the A40 in Churcham.

Residents from the affected areas packed the public gallery and held placards outside ahead of the meeting.

Cllr Francis, in presenting the motion, apologised for bringing it to the council but explained the reasons why and listed several examples of a lack of engagement over the last two years.

“There has been no forum in which to express the views of local residents, or those of town or parish councils by members,” he said.

“Members have been ignored and completely sidelined by the leader who is the local plan portfolio holder, in the development of the draft local plan.

“The views of members in the formation of the local plan have not been included or even discussed to the detriment of our electorate.

“Furthermore, it has led to an absence of any in depth debate over the wider strategy including the exploration of alternative options for site allocations needed to accommodate the unprecedented increase in the government’s requirement for housebuilding in the district.”

Council leader Adrian Birch (Green, Tidenham) said the council had remained true to the engagement process of the Local Plan and outlined the consultation which has been done so far.

He said the policies have not changed from the previous plan which they are currently updating due to the need to build 13,200 new homes over the next 23 years.

“Much of the work that was done then is still valid,” he said.

“The policies have not changed, the proposals for most existing settlements have not changed either in the latest plan.”

He said after the increase in the number of homes needed, the council decided to follow the local development scheme promoted by the Government in February 2025.

“This set a strict timeline of activities to be undertaken by December 2026.

"And this we have followed,” he added.

He also said there have been seven councillor events since related to the local plan which were poorly attended with between 18 and 23 members not attending at any one time.

Cllr Birch said a further members’ information meetings are planned for March 17 and in April and May after the closure of the public consultation.

“It seems to me appropriate at that point for us all to discuss the issues with the detailed evidence as we did before, that is before the final decisions are made,” he said.

He said it was clear that they have attempted to engage with members but they have failed to engage.

“Cllr Francis’ proposals for the dispersal of 12,000 houses among all other settlements is simply not practical,” he said.

“We can only allocate land for development where the landowner has offered it.

“We cannot allocate housing where we like and we do not have resources to compulsory purchase sites.

“If residents have concerns about Glynchbrook and Churcham, they should address them to the neighbours who have offered their land for development, not the council that is acting lawfully to implement the local plan based upon the requirements of the national planning policy framework.”

Cllr Birch said if the council did not approve a local plan they would lose control over the area’s future and the district would be exposed to speculative development.

Liberal Democrat councillor Gill Moseley (Newent and Taynton) said people are angry and they know the proposals will not work.

She said the council leadership has not been listening and asked why there had not been roundtable discussions with members as has previously been done.

Labour councillor Patrick Kyne (Coleford), who voted against the motin, said that before he was elected the council’s previous “infighting with a dash of petty politics” damaged his opinion of local govertnment.

“So here we are again,” he said. “This motion is based on subjectivity with no real provable data to back it up.

“Given the limited life of the council and the real challenges in the district, do we really want to spend time on this?”

He said irrespective of the vote there would be no winners as almost half of the council did not have confidence in its leadership.

Councillor Sid Phelps (G, Lydbrook) said Cllr Francis appeared to be prepared to do almost anything to stop the Local Plan from going ahead in its current form.

But he said the drawbacks of not having a valid Local Plan are significant.

Cllr Phelps explained they had prepared a strategy without the new settlements but had to reconsider this after the Government almost doubled their housing target.

Progressive Independent Councillor Jamie Elsmore (Berry Hill) said the motion arose from the way the draft local plan has been developed “without meaningful engagement of members, inclusive forums and without the opportunity for ward councillors to meaningfully represent their residents”.

“That is a serious democratic concern,” he said.

But Councillor Richard Burton (Green, Newnham) said it was clear the motion was all about stopping the two new developments in the north of the district.

“If passed, it will do exactly the opposite and the developments will become almost inevitable because the developers will be able to run roughshod over anything,” he said.

“If we don’t have a Local Plan it will be the wild west.

“If you vote for this, you are voting for these developments. They will still happen but we will have absolutely no control.

“I urge you to vote against this motion.”

The council voted to reject the no-confidence motion by 19 to 18 with one abstention.