TOWN councils are angry over District Council Cabinet plans to continue preparing for car parking charges without adhering to a formally agreed scrutiny process.

They believe the Forest of Dean District Council risks incurring even more expense in relation to a project that as yet has not been approved by members, and are now asking for an independent legal view on the matter.

The District Council's five-member Cabinet last week decided it would go ahead with work on the charging plans even though the matter has been called in.

However, they said, they will not act on any measures until the scrutiny work is complete. This is being presented to the Full Council on December 17 and the Cabinet will act on it the following day.

The decision has angered Lydney, Cinderford and Coleford town councils who say no such work should proceed ahead of the scrutiny findings.

Meanwhile Lydney town clerk Jayne Smailes said all three town councils were opposed to the introduction of charges. However they were in little doubt that the district could legally introduce them, but it did not constitute a revenue raising act. Any surplus income raised could only be used to maintain the car parks or to improve local transport initiatives instead of being used to 'plug' FODDC's budget deficits.

"We have always sought clarification from the district on how this money might be used if parking charges come in, but so far we have received no satisfactory answers," she said.

She added: "By not allowing the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the time necessary to complete their investigation or indeed considering the matter at Full Council before proceeding, it negates the necessity for FODDC to comprise of 47 members as such decisions appear to be that of a select committee which consists of only five members.

"How can this be democracy at work? Surely the electorate who have voted for their district councillor have a right expect that he or she will represent them"

It would also be more appropriate if the town councils concerned administered the charges and spent the money on local improvements, she said, but they would be far happier without any charging.

An e-mail sent to FODDCs monitoring officer/solicitor seeks an independent legal view on the matter and suggests that not all members of FODDC are aware as to what is being addressed without their prior approval or knowledge.

"We believe the wording of the (parking) resolution to be ambiguous and feel confident that members will feel that items of District Council business are being addressed without their prior knowledge/consent."

Coleford town clerk Annie Lappington said: "It seems ludicrous that the FoDDC are threatening their introduction when they shelved them in 2008 because of the fragile nature of the forest economy.

"The FoDDC does appear to be acting against its own constitution just to introduce charges which will not yield the expected revenue, will cost a fortune to administer and could see the demise of the market towns."

And Cinderford town clerk Lynda Thomas added: "It is apparent that the majority of income is expected to come from short term car parking, yet in Cinderford, our regeneration plans see shared parking space throughout the town centre, which means free parking for short periods of time, which will of course affect the figures being projected by the consultants.

"They have compared our Forest towns with that of Ledbury, which is completly different. We believe all the figures are incorrect and completely out of date. These plans, once shelved in 2008, should be shelved again."

Charges are due to be introduced on July 1 next year in spite of trader complaints and a growing petition against the plan.