There were no deputations or questions from members of the public.

Following verification of the petition entitled “Local Referendum on Oakham One-Way Scheme”, the Council had received notice from the petition organiser that the petition would be presented to the Council meeting by Mr G Robinson.

Mr E Baines indicated his intention to propose a motion without notice under Procedure Rule 36 of the RCC Constitution.  The wording of the motion was:

That Council set up a task group to research and evaluate proposals to enhance and improve Oakham Town Centre

Mr Gale confirmed that he would second this motion with the slight amendment to the wording to remove the word “Centre”.  Mr Baines agreed to this change.

Mr Hemsley proposed an amendment to the motion.  Mr Hemsley referenced his announcement made at Item 3) and requested that Council support the following amendment to the motion put forward by Mr Baines:

That Council ask Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Panel to convene a Task and Finish Group to consider the future of Oakham Town

This amendment was seconded by Mr Foster.

During debate on the amended motion, the following points were raised:

i.               Mr Begy noted that a Scrutiny Task and Finish Group appeared to be the most appropriate way to take this forward;

ii.              Mr Baines confirmed that his intention was to ensure that any review/further proposals were subject to a proper democratic process and enabled, rather than restricted, by the Council and that a Scrutiny Task and finish Group would satisfy this;

iii.            The Scrutiny Panel would decide on the membership, scope and terms of reference of the task and finish group, as well as membership.

iv.            Membership would not be restricted to members of the Scrutiny Panel and would include external stakeholders;

v.             Mr Lammie, Chair of Growth Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Panel, welcomed the opportunity for the panel to agree the terms of reference and membership of the task and finish group and confirmed that membership would be wider than the Panel itself;

vi.            Mr Walters suggested that it would be more appropriate to establish membership of the task and finish group and then that group could decide on the terms of reference.  These terms of reference could then be ratified by the Scrutiny Panel;

vii.           Confirmation was provided to Miss Waller that the usual process would be followed and the task and finish group would be expected to provide regular updates to the Scrutiny Panel.  The final recommendations of the group would be compiled in a report to Cabinet and/or Council;

viii.         Mr Bird expressed that it would be unfortunate to lose the momentum that had been gained on the need to improve the town and that any task and finish group should be representative of those living and working in Rutland; and

ix.            Mr Baines highlighted the importance of the role of elected members in representing the wishes of the community they serve.  He had proposed the motion to demonstrate the commitment of the whole council to take the improvements to Oakham Town forward and was satisfied that the amendment achieved this aim.  Elected members must continue to maintain the trust and support of the public to ensure Rutland continues to be a County to be proud of.

The AMENDMENT was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED:

That Council ask Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Panel to convene a Task and Finish Group to consider the future of Oakham Town.

Mr Robinson was invited to present the petition “Local Referendum on Oakham One-Way Scheme” to the Council.  A summary of his presentation is included below:

·       Consideration had been given to withdrawing the petition following the announcement last week that work on the Oakham Town Centre Scheme had been halted until further notice, but Mr Robinson felt he had a duty to the signatories of the petition to put the view forward;

·       The responses from the consultation carried out by the Council published in Report No. 142/2017 were not considered to be representative of the Rutland Electorate;

·       The petition organisers felt that everyone living, working or socialising in Rutland should have the opportunity to be consulted on such an important decision;

·       The petition had 3135 signatures to date and continued to collect signatures;

·       There was a significant amount of opposition to a one-way system;

·       It was hopes that traders would be more heavily involved in any future proposals;

·       A referendum was still seen as the appropriate method of gauging public opinion on such an important decision.

During discussion and debate on the petition the following points and questions to Mr Robinson were noted:

i.      Mr Oxley wanted to highlight that although a paper had been presented to Cabinet, the Council as a whole had not yet had the opportunity to debate and decide on the proposal;

ii.     Mr Oxley asked whether Mr Robinson envisaged that any future consultation include the whole of Rutland and not just the Town of Oakham?  Mr Robinson felt that everyone in Rutland should be included in the consultation and that a good scheme would get the support of the Rutland population;

iii.    Miss Waller asked Mr Robinson whether now was the right time to consult with the public and whether it would be more appropriate to wait for the findings of the Task and Finish Group?  Mr Robinson replied that it now may be better to wait, but then the public should be asked to vote in favour or against any scheme put forward through a referendum;

iv.   Miss Waller requested the cost of holding a referendum, this was estimate to be approximately £60-£80k;

v.     Mr Baines asked whether Mr Robinson felt the motion to create a task and finish group met the concerns of the petition organisers?  Mr Robinson stated that he would like to see how progress was made, but that it was an improvement, he would still like to see it put to the vote before the end of the year;

vi.   Mr Lammie emphasised that the cost of a referendum would mean spending a large amount of public money and that any decision on a referendum should wait until the work had been done by the task and finish group.  Should a referendum still be required other stakeholders should contribute to the costs;

vii.  Mr Clifton emphasised that the decision at Cabinet had been to look at a final design, the final design would have been included in a report to Council for debate and decision.  The task and finish group would provide the opportunity for all groups to be represented and come up with a joint decision, the group could also decide what would be the best way to ensure there is a full and proper consultation;

viii.Mr Bird accepted that the referendum would give a very clear mandate, but also felt there were elements of the petition which were unclear with regard to the area covered by the referendum and also highlighted that the number of signatories to the petition requesting a referendum did not represent the majority of the Rutland population.  All these factors would need to be clarified by the task and finish group;

--o0o--

Mr Arnold joined the meeting.

--o0o--

ix.   Mr Gale asked how the Council could improve communication with the public.  Mr Robinson felt that the task and finish group through inclusion of traders and members of the public would improve the flow of information.  In response to Mr Birds comments, Mr Robinson believed that any consultation should include the views not just of people living in Oakham, it was a County Town and the views of those who worked and shopped in the town should also be considered;

x.     Mr Cross emphasised that the opportunity to debate this issue in a public forum was positive and that elected members were representatives of the community and as such welcomed feedback from the public in order that they could inform the decision making process; and

xi.   Mr Hemsley confirmed that he had been influenced by the discussion and representations that a one-way proposal was not supported and hoped that further work would result in a positive outcome for the town.

In response to the petition Mr Hemsley proposed the following motion:

The formal response to the petition as presented to Council this evening will be that the Council will ask the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Panel to convene a Task and Finish Group to consider the future of Oakham Town

This motion was seconded by Mr Brown.

RESOLVED

Council AGREED that the formal response to the petition as presented to Council this evening will be that the Council will ask the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Panel to convene a Task and Finish Group to consider the future of Oakham Town.

--o0o--

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8.09pm to allow those members of the public wishing to leave the meeting the opportunity to do so.

--o0o—

The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 8.13pm

--o0o--