A POLITICAL slanging match has broken out in the row over the future of The Triangle in the centre of Cinderford.

The Forest of Dean District Council is looking at taking legal action against Cinderford Town Council over the operation of the lease that the town council has had for the last 15 years on the public space which includes shops and hosts a weekly market.

The Conservative-majority district council says the Labour-controlled town council has failed to make payments due as part of the lease on the Triangle and has not responded to letters.

For good measure, a member of the Cabinet wondered why the then Labour-controlled district council had imposed such “onerous” conditions.

But Labour members say the Triangle is an asset for Cinderford, not the Forest as a whole, that there was no lease but a ‘peppercorn’ rent.

The Tory leadership was also asked if they were trying to give Labour’s Forest heartland ‘a bloody nose’ over the issue.

Labour’s Max Coborn, who is also Mayor of Cinderford, called for legal action to be halted and for a working group meet with the town council to discuss the arrangements.

He said the district council should “stop all legal action regarding the transfer, bearing in mind that this is an asset acquired through the single regeneration budget for the community of Cinderford, and not as an asset for the district council.”

Cabinet member for finance, Cllr Richard Boyles (Con, Newnham and Westbury) said the then Labour-controlled district council had agreed a contract with a profit-share with 80 per cent going to the Forest Council.

“I understand that over the last 15 years no payments have been made so we need that contract run correctly.”

He said the district council’s surveyor had estimated £5,000 worth of work was needed on the Triangle but he added a working group was not needed as there was a meeting with the town council planned for last night (Tuesday) and there was already a management group.

Deputy leader of the council, and former Cabinet member for finance Cllr Brian Robinson (Con, Mitcheldean) said the issue had first been flagged up by auditors three years ago.

He said proposals put to the town council in June last year had no response and “we now find we have a situation where officers wrote on November 27 and Cinderford Town Council is now claiming the terms were not as set out.”

He added: “I don’t have a strong view on why the then Labour-controlled district council put what I consider quite onerous terms on the town council.”

Cllr Graham Morgan (Lab, Cinderford West, who was a member of both councils in 2000, said he was unaware of a profit-share and denied the town council had ignored letters.

He said: “I know of no agreements that were signed between Cinderford Town Council and this council that said we had to give any percentage over.

“That building was let to Cinderford Town Council on a peppercorn rent.”

Cllr Paul Hiett (Lab, Bream) asked: “If it was such a burning concern why has it never been picked up?

“Why are you choosing now? Is it political to give Cinderford a bloody nose?”

Council leader Cllr Patrick Molyneux (Con, Hewelsfield and Woolaston) denied wanting “to give anyone a bloody nose.”

He added: “When two authorities sign a legal agreement they are expected to carry out that agreement.”