To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Mr C Parsons.

To receive any announcements by the Chairman.

The Chairman announced that his list of engagements had been circulated.

The Chairman announced that Rutland’s only Honoury Alderman, Mr Tommy Suthern had passed away at the age of 104.  The funeral would take place on Monday 21 November 2016.  The Chairman asked the Council to join him in a moment of silence.

To receive any announcements by the Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service.

There were no announcements from the Leader, Members of the Cabinet, or the Head of Paid Service.

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any disclosable interests under the Code of Conduct and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

Mr King declared an interest in item 8 of the agenda as the Portfolio Holder for the Council’s assets.  Mr King stated that he would not take part in this item and on a probity basis would leave the meeting during the consideration of the application.

Mr Foster confirmed that although the operational responsibility for the Children’s Centre was within his Portfolio, he would focus on Item 8 of the agenda as a planning matter and base any decision on relevant planning considerations only.  On the grounds of probity as a member of Cabinet that had taken the decision in favour of the proposed Children’s Centre.  He was not predetermined on this application and would remain for the consideration of this item.

Mr Mathias declared on the grounds of probity as a member of Cabinet that he had taken the decision in favour of the proposed Children’s Centre.  He was not predetermined on this application and would remain for the consideration of this item.

To confirm the Minutes of the 254^th meeting of the Rutland County Council District Council held on 12 September 2016.

The minutes of the 254th meeting of the Rutland County Council District Council held on 12 September 2016 were confirmed by the Council and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes.  Petitions, deputations and questions will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.

The Chairman clarified at this point that in accordance with Rutland County Council Procedure Rules, Deputations relating to Agenda Item 8 would be taken at that item.

      i.        Mr J Riggall - Question

Are Rutland County Council aware of The Burns Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, and what it says on 'stopping up' of badger setts in paragraphs 9.21 - 9.24 on P149 i.e. that it is principally done to prevent the escape of foxes?

The Chief Executive, Mrs H Briggs read the response on behalf of Mr T King, Leader of the Council.

Yes the Council is aware of the Burns Inquiry and based on your question time has been taken to review the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales.

It would perhaps be helpful at this point to remind Council that the decision taken to allow the Hunt to use Catmose Car Park is purely to facilitate a safe assembly point for the Hunt and to allow what is a popular spectacle to take place in line with a tradition going back many years.

As a supplementary question, Mr Riggall asked in relation to his earlier question, whether the Council was aware that one of the employees of the Cottesmore Hunt had been prosecuted last year for the offence of interfering with a Badger sett and what does the Council think that means regarding the intentions of the Cottesmore Hunt?

The Chief Executive, Mrs H Briggs gave the response on behalf of Mr T King, Leader of the Council.

It is not for the Council to ensure that the Hunt acts within the law. This is a matter for the Police. I am aware specifically of the provisions within the Burns report referred to in the question in relation to the stopping up of badger setts.

I am also aware of an instance in 2015 where a hunt employee pleaded guilty to an offence and was successfully prosecuted and fined for the offence of interfering with a badger sett in contravention of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

To me this highlights that where illegal acts take place the police and the courts are acting.

    ii.        Mr M Brookes – Question 1

What is the total amount spent by Rutland County Council to erect and take down the scaffolding at the rear of Rutland County Library here in Oakham?

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Development, Mr T King, responded that the scaffolding was erected to give Members of the Council and the public an opportunity of understanding the massing of the proposed building.

The supplier was asked to:

•              Provide and erect the scaffolding

•              Screening

•              Dismantle and remove the scaffolding at the end of the period

•              Included within the figure was up to 2 weeks rental of the scaffolding.

The cost for erecting the scaffolding and screening, 2 weeks rental and dismantling and removing the scaffolding at the end of this period was £2,931.

As a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 363.

To receive any questions submitted from Members of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 30 and 30A.

      i.        Mr ME Baines

Is the leader aware of the public perception that the decision on the planning application on tonight’s agenda is a foregone conclusion and will he assure us that this is not the case?

The Leader, Mr T King, responded that originally there were two projects, the refurbishment of the library which was approved by Cabinet in June 2016 and the relocation of the children’s centre.  A Cabinet report combining these two projects was approved by Cabinet in September 2016, this had been published on the Forward Plan from July 2016.  No major issues were received from Councillors or members of the public at that time. It was not until the planning application was submitted that I became aware of neighbours’ concerns regarding children in the library, children in the garden, traffic on Bull Lane and road safety.  I was also made aware of Members concerns regarding the conservation area following the Planning Committee.  I hope that Members will have open minds and take into account planning matters only.  I am aware of the concerns from the community about this proposal.

As a supplementary question, Mr Baines asked the Leader to comment on the assurance (taken from the minutes of 24 September 2016) given by the RCC Officer responsible for leisure and tourism at a meeting of the Local History and Records Society that eventually the Children’s Centre would be moving to the library.  Mr Baines stated that he did not think the officer had deliberately misled the society, but may have led the society to believe that this had already been decided and was a foregone conclusion.

Mr King responded that some projects will come from Members and others will be developed by officers.  This project had been picked up and developed by officers some time ago.  The refurbishment of the library was approved by Cabinet in June and the officer concerned spent some time explaining to various community groups including the one to which Mr Baines refers.  Officers were aware of the recommendation to be put forward and felt it in order to discuss the proposal with members of the community.  In hindsight the Officer might have qualified any discussion of this matter by specifying that it was still subject to final planning decision, but by that point professional planning advice had also been received and was supportive of the design and location.  At that point there was no reason that the officer should have qualified his useful comment and I don’t think it indicated it was a foregone conclusion.  If we kept all decisions hidden until the final decision there would be concerns regarding secrecy and so to be open is the right way to go forward.  The matter did appear in the local press on the same day or the day before the meeting of the society and that did not point out the decision was subject to a final planning decision either.  I believe the officer was in order to make that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 364.

***

The Chairman invited the Monitoring Officer, Mrs D Mogg, to give a summary of the position regarding Item 8

The Monitoring Officer gave the following summary of the position:

Part 3(2)(i) of the constitution sets out that Council is responsible for determining development proposals in the event of a conflict between the committee and an application submitted by the Cabinet.  This is correct.  However, further legal advice has clarified that this rule should have been enacted as soon as it became apparent that the conflict existed during the DC&L meeting and at that point the decision should have been automatically referred to Council.  So, at the point in the Committee meeting when a proposal was made to refuse the application, advice should have been given by the Committee’s Legal Adviser that the decision could not be taken by the Committee and it would automatically be referred to Full Council.  Consideration of the application by DC&L should have ceased at this point.

The result of this is that the decision made by DC&L in respect of this application is not in accordance with the Council’s constitution.  This position needs to be corrected at the meeting this evening.

To do this the Council must suspend Procedure Rule 31(5)(d)(i) which says that “In the case of a decision of the Development Control and Licensing Committee on an application for planning permission which has been referred to the Council, the Council shall either endorse the decision of the Committee or remit it to the Committee for reconsideration and final decision”.   Suspending this Procedure Rule allows Full Council to make the final decision in respect of the planning application, as if no decision has already been made.  This means that either a refusal or approval decision will be lawful. 

If this rule is not suspended, the legal position is not corrected and the Council will be unable to take a lawful decision this evening.

I am therefore seeking a proposer for the motion:

“That Council suspend Procedure Rule 31(5)(d)(i) for the duration of this meeting in order to ensure that we are operating within our constitution”

As I’m sure you will understand this is an unusual set of circumstances, but it is extremely important that this position is corrected.  That is why I am advising in the strongest possible terms that you approve this motion.

Before the Chair asks for a proposer I would like to take the opportunity to remind Members of the requirements of the Members’ Planning Code. 

In the run up to tonight, you will have heard and seen lots of information in respect of the project to relocate the children’s centre and the varying opinions that are held about this.  You will have heard from the public, the applicant and each other as councillors.  This may have started to inform your decision but you should approach the decision this evening with an open mind. 

When you come to make the decision you should keep at the front of your mind that:

•              You are entitled to have and to have expressed your own views on the matter, provided you are prepared to reconsider your position in the light of all the evidence and arguments;

•              You must keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence before you, both the officers’ presentation of the facts and their advice as well as the arguments from all sides;

•              You are only entitled to take account of material planning considerations and must disregard considerations irrelevant to the question and legal context at hand; and

•              You are to come to a decision after giving what you feel is the right weight to those material considerations.

The Chairman invited Members to seek procedural clarification regarding the summary provided by the Monitoring Officer during which the following points were raised:

      i.        Mr King would remain in the meeting for discussion on the procedure but would leave at discussion of item 8;

    ii.        Legal Advisor confirmed that at the point where there was a clear indication that there was a conflict at the Development Control and Licensing Committee (DC&L) the matter should be automatically referred to Council;

   iii.        Vexatious proposals against a recommendation should be avoided as members would be adhering to the Members Planning Code of Practice and the Code of Conduct;

   iv.        Mr Baines, Chairman for Development Control and Licensing Committee accepted that he had not asked for legal advice following the briefing meeting before the Committee and requested confirmation of whether everything that followed from the decision of DC&L had been invalid and also whether it was possible to move forward this evening in any different way than that which was suggested by the Monitoring Officer.  After taking legal advice the Monitoring Officer confirmed that if Council did not approve the motion and suspend the procedure rule her advice would be that Council should not continue with the decision on item 8 as to do so would be unlawful.

Mr Mathias moved the motion to suspend Procedure Rule 31(5)(d)(i).  This was seconded by Mr Conde.

RESOLVED

Council AGREED to suspend Procedure Rule 31(5)(d)(i) for the duration of this meeting in order to ensure that we are operating within our constitution.

---o0o---

In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, paragraph 2 – Recording of Votes - Mr Gale requested that his votes against the above resolution be recorded.

---o0o---

Mr T King Left the meeting at 7:50pm.

---o0o---

The Chairman reminded Council that they would be operating under Council Procedure Rules for Item 8.

To determine matters where a decision taken by a Committee has been referred to the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 110.

1)    Development Control and Licensing Committee – 25 October 2016

To receive Report No. 203/2016 from the Director of Places relating to planning application 2016/0872/FUL – Proposed Extension to Oakham Library.

Mr N Hodgett, Principal Planning Officer, gave a brief introduction and referred to the presentation provided as an annex to these minutes.  Mr Hodgett displayed the existing outline of the library building and the proposed outline along with the revised plan showing the inclusion of the wall and gates.

a) To receive any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes.  Deputations will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.

      i.        Mrs J Lucas

Thank you for giving me time to voice my opinion and the opinions of many residents of the town.

Also thank you to the member who sent me a five page missive of why the application should be approved and the range of services Visions has to offer.

Reading page one...quote

“The Children's team provide space at Catmose each week for the following health service. Weekly antenatal clinic for midwives and health visitors, antenatal support group for prospective parents, and a breast-feeding support group, then there are a range of support programmes for young babies and toddlers and parents and development assessment clinics.”

This has nothing what so ever to do with a library service. 60% of what is on offer is NOT centred around library usage. Only two sessions each week have anything to do with books or reading ability.

Much has been said about the parking difficulties and I am sure more comments will be made on this subject.

The whole extension looks like an add-on box and is to be built in a conservation area. When Oakham in Bloom began, I was told by the then Conservation Officer that the Grey Cob Wall surrounding the Peacock Area was listed and then we had to have a Rutland County Council Officer to oversee the work. This I duly arranged and work began.

Two seats were replaced, one by a Past Mayor of the town and one by an Oakham in Bloom member in memory of his wife. Oakham Town Council have maintained these seats ever since. The seats are well used by townsfolk and visitors alike and the area is a pleasant space to read the daily papers, to sit and chat or to just watch the world go by.

I note that the Centre encompasses the whole of Rutland so I ask the question ....Why Oakham? Why not in another town or village?

Once this building is in place there is no turning back. If user numbers dwindle, then we have yet one more White Elephant in our lovely town. This application, if granted, is another dreadful example of destruction, by this authority, of a space in a conservation area. It is my, and many residents opinions, a short term gain with a long-term loss.

I ask for Members to reject this application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 365.

To determine matters where a decision taken by the Cabinet has been referred to Council by the call-in procedure of Scrutiny Panels, as a result of the decision being deemed to be outside the Council’s policy framework by the Monitoring Officer or not wholly in accordance with the budget by the Section 151 Officer, in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 206 and 207.

No call-ins were received.

To receive Report No. 200/2016 from the Cabinet on recommendations referred to the Council for determination and to note the Key Decisions taken at its meetings held on 20 September 2016 and 18 October 2016.

Report No. 200/2016 from the Cabinet was deferred to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.

a.            To receive reports from Committees on matters which require Council approval because the Committee does not have the delegated authority to act on the Council’s behalf.

                                     i.        Report of the Rutland Health and Well Being Board – Revised Terms of Reference.

b.            To receive reports from Council Committees on any other matters and to receive questions and answers on any of those reports.

Report No. 205/2016 was received, the purpose of which was to seek approval of revised Terms of Reference for the Rutland Health and Wellbeing Board (RHWB).

The Chair of the RHWB introduced the report and moved the recommendations.  Mr Wilby seconded the recommendations.

During debate of the recommendations points raised included:

·         The provision to allow the Chair to make decisions for reasons of urgency outside the formal meeting, would be subject to any existing procedures and rules that are currently in place.  It would only involve final approval of items already debated by RHWB and any decision would be ratified at the following meeting.

RESOLVED

Council APPROVED the revised Terms of Reference for the Rutland Health and Wellbeing Board.

To receive the reports from the Scrutiny Commission / Scrutiny Panels on any matters and to receive questions and answers on any of those reports.

No reports were received.

To receive reports about and receive questions and answers on the business of any joint arrangements or external organisations.

This item was cancelled due to insufficient time.

To consider the Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Gale Waller and seconded by Councillor Kevin Thomas in accordance with Procedure Rule 34, the text of which can be found in the agenda pack.

The Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Gale Waller was received in accordance with Procedure Rule 34 was received.

Miss Waller introduced the motion and moved the recommendation.  Mr Thomas seconded the recommendation.

MAKE FAIR TRANSITIONAL STATE PENSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR 1950’SWOMEN

“This Council calls upon the Government to make fair transitionalstate pension arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State PensionAge (SPA) with lack of appropriatenotification.

Hundreds of thousands of women nationally had significant pensionchanges imposed on them by the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011with little/no/personal notification of the changes. Some women had onlytwo years notice of a six-year increase to their state pensionage.

Many women born in the 1950's, including Rutland residents, are living in hardship. Retirementplans have been shattered with devastating consequences. Many ofthese women are already out of the labour market, caring for elderlyrelatives, providing childcare for grandchildren, or suffer discrimination inthe workplace so struggle to findemployment.

Women born in this decade are suffering financially. These womenhave worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and nationalinsurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure whenreaching 60. It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute - it is widelyaccepted that women and men should retire at the sametime.

The issue is that the rise in these women's state pension age has beentoo rapid and has happened without sufficient notice being given tothe women affected, leaving women with no time to makealternative arrangements.

This Council will write to the Government to request it reconsidertransitional arrangements for women born on or after 6th April 1951, so thatwomen do not live in hardship due to pension changes they were not toldabout until it was too late to make alternativearrangements.”

During debate the points raised included:

·                     A parliamentary petition containing over 100,000 signatures on a similar subject had already been debated in Westminster in February/March 2016.  The details of the decision can be found on the website and so if a letter was sent to Government, the response would be likely to refer to that decision;

·                     Would it be of more value to address this as part of the Scrutiny Project on Poverty in Rutland in order to achieve a more practical and local solution; and

·                     Sending a letter may help to raise the profile of this issue and would not involve a huge amount of work.

RESOLVED

This Council AGREED to write to the Government to request it to reconsidertransitional arrangements for women born on or after 6th April 1951, so thatwomen do not live in hardship due to pension changes they were not toldabout until it was too late to make alternativearrangements.

To receive Report No. 206/2016 from the Director for Resources.

Report No. 206/2016 from the Director for Resources was received the purpose of which was to provide an update on the result of the consultation on the draft recommendations and seek approval of the timetable and next steps for the review.

A short introduction was provided by the Director for Resources, Mrs D Mogg, which clarified that Council were being asked to approve the next steps in Section 5 of the report.  Should the Final recommendations be approved in January 2017, Council would be asked to formally appoint to any interim Council in March 2017.

Mr Hemsley proposed the recommendations.  Mr King seconded the recommendations.

During debate the following points were raised:

·         Progress on the review was welcomed and the enthusiasm of the steering group for the Parish was noted; and

·         Costs listed under 4.5.4 of the report should include the costs of a website.

RESOLVED

1)          Council NOTED the results of the consultation on the Draft Recommendations; and

2)          Council APPROVED the timetable and next steps for the review detailed in Paragraph 5 of Report No. 206/2016.

To receive Report No.204/2016 from the Monitoring Officer.

Report No. 204/2016 from the Monitoring Officer was received, the purpose of which was to ensure that the list of Proper Officers remains up to date in light of personnel changes in the organisation and to amend the constitution to allow for substitutions on the Development Control and Licensing Committee subject to any members substituting having received the appropriate training.

Mrs D Mogg gave a brief introduction.

Mr King proposed the recommendations.  Mr Mathias seconded the recommendations.

During debate the following points were raised:

• Members who were not part of a group could not act as substitutes for each other.  This was a statutory regulation, not a council procedure.

RESOLVED

1)          Council APPROVED the revision to the list of statutory Proper Officers set out at Appendix A to Report 204/2016;

2)          Council APPROVED the revision to Procedure Rule 20 (6) to allow substitutions on the Development Control and Licensing Committee on the condition that any substitute has received the appropriate training; 

---o0o---

In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, paragraph 2 – Recording of Votes - Mr Gale requested that his votes against the above resolution be recorded.

---o0o---

3)          Council APPROVED that attendance at annual planning training should be mandatory for all Members; and

4)        Council AUTHORISED the Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution accordingly.

To receive items of urgent business which have been previously notified to the person presiding.

No matters of urgent business were received.